Some light on Tuhoe
May 17th, 2010 at 7:40 am by David FarrarThere has effectively been two aspects of the Government’s decision to not hand over the Urewera National Park to Tuhoe as part of the treaty settlements – the actual decision, and the way it was made public at a press conference before negotiations were concluded.
I doubt many people have an issue with the actual decision. No other treaty settlement has had a national park as part of it – unless it is gifted back. According to reports the Government has offered co-management of the park, which is not insignificant.
But what had puzzled me was why the decision was made public by the Government, rather than just communicated privately to Tuhoe. This is what a lot of media had focused on – the fact the decision was made public.
As it happened on Saturday night, I was at a social function with the PM. Normally it is not my habit to use these opportunities to ask the PM questions, but this one had puzzled me, so I put aside my normal rule and did ask him why he made the decision over the Urewera National Park public.
His answer was simple – because Tuhoe asked him to!
He communicated the decision by phone to the Tuhoe Chief Negotiator on Monday morning. The Chief Negotiator said that as Iwi members were planning to gather on Friday in anticipation of an agreement, they needed to be told and asked the Prime Minister to make the Government’s decision public. The Prime Minister said he could announce it at the post Cabinet press conference that afternoon, and that was deemed satisfactory.
And so he did.
So it was not part of any public slap down – something which I never thought was the PM’s style – hence why I asked the question.
My hope is that a settlement can still be reached. The wrongs done to Tuhoe were massive. They will be disappointed with the Government’s decision, but listening to Phil Goff on Q+A made it pretty clear they have little chance of getting a different decision from a different Government in the future.
Tags: John Key, treaty, Tuhoe
May 17th, 2010 at 8:22 am
A deal isn’t “done” untill its signed sealed and we’re all crying about being evil white mofos and wearing hair shirts etc. Tuhoe have learned something useful about negotiations. Don’t go claiming victory before you have one.
“The hen is the wisest bird because she alone does not cackle until after the egg is laid.” Abraham Lincoln
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:28 am
It seems to me that Tuhoe are at fault.
They had scheduled a meeting for the friday AND were going to announce the inclusion of the park as part of the agreement in principle – they had already had memorablia made for such an announcement!!
BUT they were a bit previous. the cabinet hadnt agreed and I suspect Key felt he was being backed into a corner by Tuhoe – ie: they were going to announce the inclusion and put a bit of PR pressure on the Govt to deliver.
Vote:I think felt he was being pressured so came out fighting.
Tuhoe then had to either eat humble pie and admit they got it wrong, but Key gave them the get out – he would announce it. The let them off the hook for trying to corner him.
May 17th, 2010 at 8:32 am
The wrongs done to Tuhoe were massive.
What about the wrongs done to Whakatane.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Bit of a bombshell eh? Where were the glorious antique media?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:48 am
As is the never ending attribution of guilt on European NZers, and the subsequent extraction of apartheid-like favour in perpetuity.
The governance of both sides of grievance industry stoke the fires of bitterness thereby ensuring a comfortable livelihood for them, and for those who follow in their footsteps. It is a disgrace.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Still waiting for an appology over the cannibalistic massacre of the crew and passengers of the Boyd…..
Whenever you’re ready.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:51 am
But Tuhoe is not even a Treaty partner, so why does it have a Treaty claim for anything at all?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:55 am
@Bevan
??? Whakatane?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Rich Prick
Dead right, Tuhoe never signed the treaty, therefore they have no claim at all.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:59 am
@Rich Prick – Because the grievance industry put up a sign saying ‘You’re oppressed. Compensation is available. Apply here”.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Hmmm, well on that basis, I didn’t pick up a Lotto ticket last week, but I suppose I can still put my hand out for a share of the winnings just the same.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Just announce the settlement before you meet officals Rich, you’ll be right.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:17 am
@Rich Prick, big bruv
Treaty of Waitangi Act, section 6:
The jurisdiction is very wide – not just iwi or hapu who signed theTreaty.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Where the hell is the tribunal to examine the cliams of non-Maori who were victims of Maori?
We live in a country where one racial sub-group litterally cannot have done any wrong.
What a big hairy load of crap.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:30 am
and once again..the racists come out to play/display their wares…
oh look..!..there’s muzza..!
..that’s a surprise..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:32 am
and the focus-groups in white-flight centres…conducted by your polling-company curia..
..had no part to play in key calling off this deal with tuhoe..?
..eh..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Toad
What is iwi and hapu and why should I care?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Phool
Is there a lot of “flight” around your place?
Are the lawns still knee high?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:35 am
d’yareckon key will be pissed..
..when he realises he has been led by the nose…?
..by the racist/reactionary parts of national..?
(is that ‘most’ of national..?..d’yareckon..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Tuhoe, the short story.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Ah, the “racist” label, that was bound to be spluttered sooner or later in a thread like this.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:39 am
RP
It is usually spluttered by those who are losing the argument in an attempt to shut down the debate.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:49 am
The iwi and hapu terms have been used and abused so much that few people believe in them anymore.
For a majority of New Zealanders the words are synonyms for greed, false sense of entitlement, handouts, gravy train, backward-looking, and victim-playing.
Enough of this pandering to the Maori racists.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 9:51 am
It’s spelt raaaaaccciiissssst
When used orally it should finish with phlem and spittle, when written it should have exclamation marks – in both cases to strengthen the assertion.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Bro. Key doing as Tuhoe, a Maori iwi, want. Well what a surprise. Who would have thought that.
Second surprise, Philu, Philip Ure, Mr Man Ure, weighing in with accusations of “racist”. Some posts are, of course, but so are moves for apartheid style separate political systems in NZ – separate Government agencies, even now (P. Sharples on TVNZ) calls for separate rugby unions for Maori and non-Maori.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 10:41 am
What I don’t understand is why the Urewera National Park was ever on the table in the first place?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 10:48 am
“and once again..the racists come out to play/display their wares…
oh look..!..there’s muzza..!
..that’s a surprise..!..eh..?”
Bigotry and judgment are the height of insecurity.
Vote:Jasmine Guy
May 17th, 2010 at 10:50 am
“..Mr Man Ure,..”
oh..!..how clev-er..
man-who-uses-the name meaning either…venereal disease…intravenous use of drugs…or masturbation…
wanna play the name-game..?
kinda infantile..but you are a rightie..eh..?
easlly amused….eh…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 10:54 am
“…venereal disease…intravenous use of drugs…or masturbation…”
A walk in your* shoes…. eh?
*debatable
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 10:55 am
toad: ??? Whakatane?
Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding, especially for one trumpeting the rights of Tuhoe, and the wrongs committed against them. The old phrase, that there are two sides to the story comes to mind. All along, we have heard the stories of how the Tuhoe were made to suffer at the hands of the greedy colonialists – not once have we heard what wrongs the Tuhoe comitted. I suggest you look into the fighting between Ngati Awa and Tuhoe, and also the raiding and burning of Whakatane.
They deserve an apology – the wrongs committed against them were greatly unjust, but they also owe an apology. Its not always just the white man who is in the wrong.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Odd how quickly a thread on a controversial topic turns into personal attack.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am
I can’t be racist, I’m a Maori.
Seriously.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Ah, now I know what you are talking about Bevan, I would ask WTF that had to do with the Crown and/or the Treaty?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 11:54 am
My take. The deal that Tuhoe offered around Urewera National Park wasn’t sufficient. They were seeking full ownership after 10 years, with no restrictions. They made a promise to continue to provide access to all, but I didn’t see anywhere in that promise:
– any assurance that the access would be free (and it isn’t strictly free today)
– any assurance that all of the park would remain a park, v’s some other method of exploitation
– any assurance against mining (given our current excitement on this topic)
– any promises about not intimidating those visiting the park (although this also happens today).
Tuhoe are, unfortunately, not a trustworthy partner. Of course, the Crown have broken many promises to them over the years, so why shouldn’t they in turn break promises to the Crown. Problem is, Key would be an idiot to put NZ in a situation where all the power was with Tuhoe, and they could decide whether or not to honour their promises.
So, in a political sense, it would be madness to allow Tuhoe unfettered rights to exploit a National park.
In an economic and freedom sense, it would be bloody brilliant. Despite all the crap that some Maori spout about National Parks and their affinity for the land, I can guarantee that if Tuhoe owned that park, and there were significant opportunities to develop it, that they would do so. Perhaps some decent tourism options, properly resourced and funded, and properly maintaining the park so as to keep the tourism value. Perhaps some mining or logging on less sensitive areas. Perhaps even clearance and farming on areas suitable for such. It could be a model of how to generate value from the conservation estate, maintain it properly, and make it accessible to those we’re supposedly preserving it for – at the moment our conservation estate is a bit like the symphony orchestra – everyone in the country pays for it, but only a privileged few ever manage to make use of it.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Toad
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3705030/Tuhoe-were-never-promised-park-PM
What say you?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“His answer was simple – because Tuhoe asked him to!” – however he would not do it just because he was asked to would he ? Presumably his advisors reflected on the likely pro’s and con’s and decided it would do more good than harm.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
toad: Ah, now I know what you are talking about Bevan, I would ask WTF that had to do with the Crown and/or the Treaty?
And what do Tuhoe have to do with the Treaty? They never signed it.
And toad, with your attitude race relations will NEVER improve in this country. You and your ilk will never admit that both sides have grievances, and both sides owe an apology.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I think the quote taken from a comment posted by baxter over at Lindsay Mitchel’s blog pretty much sums it up.
“Giving sovereignty over a vast National Park to one of the more militant less sophisticated tribes which has already permitted covert militia style activity within its’ borders would seem to me to be irresponsible and against the National Interest”.
Well said Baxter
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
@big bruv 11:57 am
Well, you can choose to believe Key if you want. Sharples says otherwise, and I understand he was directly involved with the negotiations, while Key wasn’t. I really don’t know who to believe, but given Kruger’s comments, I’d tend towards believing Sharples. I suspect it’s all a semantic game about what “promised” means.
@Bevan 12:17 pm
I responded the bit re Tuhoe not signing the treaty at 9:17am. The rest of it is a matter of opinion, but I would suggest that unless grievances are addressed in good faith by all parties, race relations will not improve.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Toad
Surprisingly enough I do choose to believe Neville Key on this occasion, the co leader of the Apartheid party Peter Sharples has been proven to have a defective/selective memory on many occasions.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Philu at 10.50
Sorry Mr Man-Ure, Jack is my Christian name (that’s first name, which, you, being illiterate, judging by your grammar, probably don’t realise).
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Jack5, Manolo
Phil prefers to be called Piripi Te Ure.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
A quote :
…Carroll (Sir James Carroll aka Jimmy taihoa)had to his credit the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896. which was characterised by Pakeha as ” Carroll’s Blot” because Maori had undisputed rights as owners. (Urewera)… .
HE TIPUA The Life and Times of Sir Apirana Ngata page 122 by Ranginui Walker. .. the reserve was 656 000 acres ..page 157
……The Queens writ did not run in Urewera until 1896 ….. page 157………
The government then set about chipping away so alot more of the area could be opened for farming and pulled a lot of swiftys to do this. BUT large areas are and were legitimately owned by the Crown due to large land for road deals and the like. This last paragraph is a generalisation.., quite a complex thing.. no a very complex thing
What I do know is that alot of the land that was freed up for farming was in Maori hands and then it was on sold , you only have to look at Ruatoki and Waimana today, stunning dairy country
Its now a National Park let it stay a National Park… I agree with PaulL it can be very bloody difficult to get in there at certain times of the year now .
Also Walkers book on Ngata is a fantastic read
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
toad: I responded the bit re Tuhoe not signing the treaty at 9:17am.
You just dont get it toad, when it suits them Tuhoe don’t give a fuck about your laws. They are proud of the fact they didnt sign the treaty – they and you can’t have a bob each way.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Bevan, you are flogging dead horse with your infantile comments about Tuhoe not signing the treaty therefore having no redress under the settlement process. Finer legal minds than ours have decreed that they do, and successive governments of all stripes have signed up to that view.
Furthermore, settlements generally recognise wrongs committed by both parties and some form of atonement offered, but it’s worth remembering that Tuhoe could at all times be considered to be acting in self-defense. And that argument seems to excuse some pretty gruesome actions by Israel against its indigenous population and its neighbours, like Lebanon.
Pauleastbay: Its now a National Park let it stay a National Park… You can’t avoid eventual responsibility for dispossession by hiding behind very convenient National Park designations. It’s only been a National Park since 1954, whereas Tuhoe occupation predates that by centuries. Did Tuhoe agree to it being designated a park? Were they even consulted?
PaulL writes some good stuff. Ownership is a complex issue (mainly for us, as we are the ones trying to keep it) but some way for Tuhoe to reap economic benefits from the land makes sense and could be a stepping stone towards a final accommodation.
Finally, just because the current crop of politicians don’t have the courage or the mana to carry off a truly just settlement doesn’t mean it won’t be possible some time in the future, especially as the influence of UNDRIP increasing permeates our law.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
This editorial appeared on Saturday in the Gisborne Herald, and offers a different perspective on the issue than most mainstream media.
http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=17323
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
4.4.4 Confiscation
By Order in Council in 1865, land was confiscated in the eastern Bay of Plenty (see
chapter 3 for boundary descriptions and a further discussion). According to one
estimate, approximately 57,344 acres of Tuhoe’s most promising agricultural and
farming land were taken in the very north of the Urewera district.4 Although
Government schedules indicate that 500 acres of this land were later returned to
‘surrendered’ Tuhoe, it has not been possible to locate this land in the Raupatu
Document Bank sources. By the end of April 1867, military settlers had been
granted lots in Waimana and Opouriao lands. Tuhoe resistance, however, confined
settlement to the north-eastern portion of the Waimana Valley. In the event, none of
the objectives of the settlements were attained, and none of the settlers stayed on
their lots. One reason cited for the failure of the settlement was constant attack by
Tuhoe, who had been driven off their land.5 Once peace was established in the
Waimana Valley in 1870, unoccupied lots were further subdivided and disposed of
by ballot.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…According to Waitangi Tribruneral documents, (above) there was only 57.5 thousand acres confiscated, the rest was sold by Tuhoe.
I wish I was as clever as you Luc and be able to generalise everything down to your warped world view, do all the reading not just the bits that fit your schemes.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Bevan, you are flogging dead horse with your infantile comments about Tuhoe not signing the treaty therefore having no redress under the settlement process. Finer legal minds than ours have decreed that they do, and successive governments of all stripes have signed up to that view.
AND THAT IS ONE REASON WHY PAKEHA ARE AGRIEVED YOU DIPSHIT!!!
FACT: Tuhoe DID NOT sign the treaty.
FACT: Tuhoe are PROUD that they did not sign.
Furthermore, settlements generally recognise wrongs committed by both parties and some form of atonement offered,
I must have missed the apologies from the various Maori tribes during the settlements….
but it’s worth remembering that Tuhoe could at all times be considered to be acting in self-defense.
So were they acting in self defense when they raided Whakatane? What about when they gave sanctuary to Te Kooti? Or what about when they joined his raiding parties?
And that argument seems to excuse some pretty gruesome actions by Israel against its indigenous population and its neighbours, like Lebanon
Fuck your a moron, where do you think the Jews were from originally?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Tuhoe did not sign the the Treaty. Neither did Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa. But they all shared in the $500 million from the Treelords scam, I mean settlement.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Means…… if you are a Maori you are “entitled”.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975, and after 35 years of compensation, payouts, settlements, and transfer of countless thousands of hectares of land back into iwi ownership, Maori still languish at the bottom of all socio-economic rankings.
What has all this achieved, apart from lining the pockets of treaty lawyers, consultants, and iwi CEO’s? I am struggling to come up with an answer.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Rubbish. Possession by a sovereign occupier has determined ownership since your ancestors were dragging their Mammoth kills back to the cave. There’s been a concerted effort to make it complex in the aftermath Marx’s failure on the world stage. Congratulations Luc. You are part of that effort.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“What has all this achieved, apart from lining the pockets of treaty lawyers, consultants, and iwi CEO’s?”
It has achieved nothing at all except the inglorious claim of sowing racial disharmony and given some dishonest people a false sense of entitlement. These claims have provided an almost endless sense of fundings to lawyers and “cultural advisors” who continue to gorge on easy money stolen from the taxpayer.
All this has occurred under the watch of successive Labour and National governments, both parties too coward to tackle and solve the problem.
The treaty of Waitangi is a millstone around New Zealand’s neck.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
What I don’t understand is why the Urewera National Park was ever on the table in the first place?
Umm because it’s theirs and the government stole it.
Also, there’s been some comment on Tuhoe having it both ways re not signing the Treaty but claiming its rights. I think this is fair enough – the Crown offered those rights all the same and so it is not hypocritical to hold them to the things they offered and promised.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
toad and man-so-low…buddies…!
(kinda fits..they are as reactionary/mired-in-the-past..as each other..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Its got bugger all to do with signing or not. Tuhoe actually owned the land by act of Parliment.
There was a confiscation which was abit of an over reaction regarding Vollkner being murdered in Opotiki. Bad for Mokomoko as well, they hung him.
BUT there is no grounds for all of the park to be handed back to Tuhoe, they sold most of it fair and squarish.
Deal was done
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
BlairM, I heard similar comments from Tariana Turia. The intent is there, but the way it is expressed is very incorrect.
1. If “it’s theirs”, then the government can’t have stolen it. The correct point here is that it was taken from them illegally at the time, not that it is “theirs”
2. There are many things the government has stolen over the years – should all of them be on the table for negotiation?
3. Tariana’s view seems to be “it’s theirs, give it back”. Those two things contradict each other.
4. The correct answer here, I think, is that the govt illegally took many things from Tuhoe. Many of those are now privately owned, so very hard to think about returning. That leaves anything owned by the govt – such as the National Park. The usual form is that it is a fictitious return – and it stays a National Park. So symbolic only. In this case, Tuhoe seem to want something else, and I think that is the sticking point.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
1. If “it’s theirs”, then the government can’t have stolen it. The correct point here is that it was taken from them illegally at the time, not that it is “theirs”
Yes because if something is stolen from you, it’s not really yours. Bloody hell! Did you really contemplate the logic of what you just wrote?
2. There are many things the government has stolen over the years – should all of them be on the table for negotiation?
YES. Next question?
3. Tariana’s view seems to be “it’s theirs, give it back”. Those two things contradict each other.
How?! How could they possibly?!
4. The correct answer here, I think, is that the govt illegally took many things from Tuhoe. Many of those are now privately owned, so very hard to think about returning.
Two words: Monetary compensation.
That leaves anything owned by the govt – such as the National Park. The usual form is that it is a fictitious return – and it stays a National Park. So symbolic only. In this case, Tuhoe seem to want something else, and I think that is the sticking point.
I don’t think they do want “something else” – they want the park. This is what a lot of pakeha do not understand about Maori – it is all about mana for them. A lot of mana-based stuff is actually very easy to set right – it’s just a case of doing it. Give them the park – nothing practical will change in reality, and anyone who wants to (not a lot of New Zealanders) will be able to venture into the Ureweras to experience the beauty of that wonderful place. The only difference is that the incompetent bureaucrats of DoC will have it taken out of their hands and put into the hands of people who actually care about the land, and have cared about it for a thousand years. That is good for all New Zealanders.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
@philu 5:21 pm
Not at all. In fact he is one of the commentariat here whom I despise most.
Your problem, Phil, is your writing style. Most of what you write I agree with, but only if I can be bothered reading it.
Anyway you seemed to be quite chuffed with the “Piripi Te Ure” moniker last time I used it a couple of years ago – maybe on another blog.
Doesn’t it work as well these days? Does that explain your sensitivity?
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Nice sentiment Blair but and don’t get me started on DoC but “putting it into the hands of the people who have cared for it for about 1000 years” Pie in the sky. There are just as many incompetent beauracrats in Maoridom as any where else.
Also, if you sell something you can’t ask for it back later. Theres no argument regarding confiscated land, restitution should be forth coming,for 57000 acres and change but there was never any confiscation of 1,000,000 acres that constitute the park.
Its politics all politics
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
any promises about not intimidating those visiting the park (although this also happens today).
From one who has hunted there I will say that I never feared this until the day Doc took over and the Tuhoe who maintained the roads and huts were sacked from thier roles in the usual name of efficiency.
I don’t think they do want “something else” – they want the park. This is what a lot of pakeha do not understand about Maori – it is all about mana for them. A lot of mana-based stuff is actually very easy to set right – it’s just a case of doing it. Give them the park – nothing practical will change in reality, and anyone who wants to (not a lot of New Zealanders) will be able to venture into the Ureweras to experience the beauty of that wonderful place. The only difference is that the incompetent bureaucrats of DoC will have it taken out of their hands and put into the hands of people who actually care about the land, and have cared about it for a thousand years. That is good for all New Zealanders.
Absolutley right. The sooner DOC are gone the better.
Waikeremoana is the most spiritual place I have ever been.
Best rainbows in NZ . water purity about 99%.
Weather that changes from dead still to howling gales in no time at all.
A lake that never gives up its dead.
A lake that goes from mirror like to green waves again in no time.
A surrounding that has unmarked graves, a sunken barge that was bought out from England in pieces and carried up the hill to be reconstructed. Tied up floating only for the locals to come in the night and bore holes in its bottom. Sorry Red Coats you can’t get across the lake to catch Te Kooti.
Lots of fascinating history that most of the groaners on here will never encounter, more is the pity.
Rimu glades in the Minganui- Ohua, acres in area and just something to see. But you gotta walk up over the hills to get there.
Disspearing river that few know about.
Holes in the Lake bottom that reappear out at sea.
Used to be a Lake house Hotel there until that Ngai Tahu tart cleaned it out way back in previous Labour Govt.
Even Had a DOC centre their until it became untenable because of DOC policy and control.
A place for mind healing and peace if ever there is.
Try it.
And please don’t use that as an excuse to fuck up the debate with religion because its not.
Vote:If you have never been there for a time you will never know.
May 17th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
“This is what a lot of pakeha do not understand about Maori – it is all about mana for them. A lot of mana-based stuff is actually very easy to set right – it’s just a case of doing it. Give them the park – nothing practical will change in reality, and anyone who wants to (not a lot of New Zealanders) will be able to venture into the Ureweras to experience the beauty of that wonderful place. The only difference is that the incompetent bureaucrats of DoC will have it taken out of their hands and put into the hands of people who actually care about the land, and have cared about it for a thousand years. That is good for all New Zealanders.”
Vote:……..
I think your on shaky ground if you assume they (Maori) will behave in a certain (favorable) way. These are the sort of rosy assumptions behind those who support “tangatawhenua” ownership of foreshore and seabed.
If there is a case for returning the park to Tuhoe it is (in my view) unfortunate as apart from DOC these are wild and free areas. Under Tuhoe would rangers wear uniforms like DOC or would any Tuhoe Joe-Blo give orders? There is also the issue of application of scientific knowledge versus claims made about the exceptional knowledge of those who practice “kaitiakitanga”.
A lot of people enjoy National Parks today, whereas: “The European population of New Zealand grew from about 1,000 in the 1830s to nearly 60,000 in 1858, when parity with Maori was reached, and then rocketed to 500,000 by the early 1880s” today our population is 4.3 million.
May 17th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
hj said: Under Tuhoe would rangers wear uniforms like DOC…
Sure, hj! And carry a 308 (like all good paramilitaries do) … to deal to the poachers.
[Grin]!
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
You’re attitude is irresponsible Toad.
Vote:May 17th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Most of you would have read Mr Tamati Kruger’s comments. He is the principal negotiator for the Tuhoe people.
Vote:Rather than give the Te Urewera National Park back to the Tuhoe people consideration could be given to changing the Park’s name; a change that reflects the mana of their principal negotiator.
Let’s call the park the KRUGER NATIONAL PARK.
May 17th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
I think it more would have been that Tuhoe had gotten wind that the old paranoid, redneck, racist, keep the maaris in their place guard of National would stomp on the negotiated Agreement in Principle including Te Urewera at cabinet. They fought a rear-guard action by releasing to the public the proposal in order to drum up support including that from hunters and trampers. They appear the far more dignified out of all this. This could not be said of the PM.
Vote: