No partial settlements

May 30th, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

A break-away northern iwi has asked the Government for a partial Treaty settlement that would give them the right to make more claims in future.

A new description for a bottomless hole.

The Government rejected the bid for a partial settlement, however.

”Full and final settlements are the cornerstone of the historical settlement process,” Finlayson said.

”Finality allows the Crown and iwi to draw a line under the grievances of the past and focus on developing a positive future together.”

I doubt few would disagree with the Minister that a settlement must be full and final.

I wonder if there is a page anywhere that shows all the settlements that have been agreed to as full and final, and all those which have been filed but not settled?

Tags:

50 Responses to “No partial settlements”

  1. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    And which ones have been “full and final” more than once?

    [DPF: None of the ones made post 1990 have been re-litigated]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (14,044 comments) says:

    “Full and final” is now part of Maori mythology, like the taniwha and other known fantasies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    So even Ngati Kahu’s agreement to negotiate “full & final settlements” turns out not to have been a full and final…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    The best documented of the so called “full and final” settlements is the Tainui settlement of the 1940’s, which was enshrined in the Waikato-Maniapoto Land Claims Settement Act of 1946.

    I have been unable to find the Act (superceded by the Maori Trust Boards Act in the 1950’s which was in turn superceded by the Tainui Settlement Act of 1995) on the net but the crucial provision read like this:

    “In final settlement of any and all claims which have heretofore been made or which may in the future be made regarding the confiscation of lands listed in the schedule [ the schedule listed parcels of land confiscated unlawfully in the 1860’s following the Land Wars] the Crown shall pay [no pound key] 6000 in each and every year…..”

    In 1946 6000 pounds was the value of a dairy farm, so lets say $2-3 million in today’s terms.

    Although the phrase “full and final” was not used, it is quite clear that both sides regarded the settlement thus.

    Twenty years ago – when the SECOND “final” settlement was being negotiated, I was referred by a lawyer acting for Tainui to Michael King’s book “Te Puea” which was said to be the best account of the 1940’s raputu settlements. If that work is accurate, there is no doubt that Princess Te Puea – who headed the team of negotiators on the Maori side – was quite satisfied with the settlment. She is quoted as saying so, and that the grievance arising from the land confiscations was “finally settled”

    The Maori version of events now is that only the pakeha – in the form of Prime Minister Peter Fraser and his advisors – thought the agreement was final. I am not sure what the late Michael King’s status among the lefties is these days…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wreck1080 (3,958 comments) says:

    None of these are going to be final anyway.

    Every future commercial development that involves natural resources of any kind will result in a Hone tapping on your shoulder for some koha.

    At least, this is how it has been for my entire life, and I cannot see it changing .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “Full and final” has never stopped Ngai Tahu making claim after claim after claim after………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Yeah the secret clauses National put in so they could come back to the trough again and again if they felt any other tribe was superceding their claim amount.

    the old adage all politicians are bastards comes to mind, unless they allow full transparency with our money of course :-).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Actually David there have alreayd been occasions of earlier stettlements going back for a “top up” when someone else gets a bigger settlement. I’m sure many people remember that little gem.

    [DPF: That is not a new settlement. That is merely honouring the settlement that was signed. The relativity clauses were only in some early agreements because without them there may have never been an initial settlement]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. southtop (265 comments) says:

    The mining/mineral trough has not opened for business yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Read the following articles on how New Zealand is being conned, time after time.
    http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/files/free_radical_26_ngai_tahu.pdf
    http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/files/free_radical_27_ngai_tahu.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. georgebolwing (978 comments) says:

    David G: you can find Acts “as enacted” on the New Zealand Legal Information Institute website, at http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/

    The preamble to the Act says: “And whereas those tribes by their representatives agreed at Ngaruawahia on the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six, to accept payment of the sums hereinafter mentioned in full settlement and
    discharge of their claims”.

    I am not sure, however, whether the claims settled in 1946 were the same claims covered by the 1990s settlement: the 1946 ones do not mention the Treaty, for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    GeorgeB: Thank you for that…I have the paper version of the 1946 Act somewhere at home, but I am presently trying to earn a crust…

    The treaty was only indirectly relevant to both the 1946 and the 1990’s settlements. They both arose from unjustifiable action by the Crown in the form of unlawful confiscations of land following the land wars in Waikato and Taranaki. Those confiscations were a breach of Article II of the Treaty…but in 1946 the Treaty was regarded as ” a simple nullity” in legal terms (David Round and others argue that that is entirely correct). Notwithstanding that, Peter Fraser was agreeing to pay compensation that the Sim Commission had strongly recommended in 1922.

    And note that the preamble uses the same phrase “full settlement”, rather than “full and final settlement”. As I said in my first post however it is quite clear from ancilliary evidence that BOTH sides regarded the settlement as “full and final” at the time. Now that we have foolishly agreed to negotiate second third and fourth “full and final” settlements, the gravy train will never end… and when you think about it, the claimants would be silly NOT to have another go every 20 years or so…just as Tariana Turia and others says they should and will…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. DrDr (114 comments) says:

    We must get past the grievance mode that we seem to have been stuck in for so long. Iwi that have settled must now use their assets to ensure that members of their iwi and their descendants yet to come have a social and economic base from which they will benefit. The infrastructure that these assets should create will hopefully make a major contribution to lifting the veil of poverty that many Māori are part of. We would hopefully also see that these assets are used to boost NZ’s economy. Most of all we need to find ways that Māori and non-Māori can co-exist, collaborate and plan for a greater future for all in this country. Ok, so that was the vision, what’s the reality? We have factions, within Māoridom, within non-Māoridom, between Māori and non-Māori. We have poverty! Tainui and Ngai Tahu amongst others have had the benefit of large settlements in the 1990s, yet we still see ordinary Māori living in impoverished conditions, are under-educated, unemployed and in many cases they have poor health. The real challenge is for iwi leaders to be more proactive than they currently seem to be. Where is the trickle down? I really want my vision to come true, but at the moment I would have to conclude that I’m a dreamer!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    DrDR: Very well said Sir/Madam…

    Or as Richard Prebble put it more colourfully: “the average Maori hasnt seen so much as a snapper out of the Sealord Deal”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Longknives (4,868 comments) says:

    Seriously- Who didn’t see this coming when ‘Full and Final’ were announced??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    David when a full and final settlement gets another suck on the sav it wasn’t either final or full was it.

    The eesence is that when a claim is settled then its done with. Obviously that is not the expectation of the climants whi come back for another helping.

    You’re attempting to use semantics to justify a perpetual claim system under the guise on “honouring” a claim. Whose idea was it to spin it that way because its stinks like a talking point wee man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    Murray: You have missed my point entirely! I absolutely agree that the settlements of the forties should have been the end of it. Once the second “full and final” settlements were done in the 1990’s (some say the Ngai Tahu’s settlement in the 1990’s was a third or even fourth “full and final”) the way is open to endless relitigating… I believe the settlements of the 1940’s were negotiated with good faith on both sides….

    I am saying we have created this situation by being gutless 20 years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    I was responding to DPF David. You all need to get personal designations or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    Rotund David and Old David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Murray: You have missed my point entirely!

    And you may have missed that you are not the only David here – Hint: the other David’s last name begins with F.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    Always nice when the children come home from school…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. lastmanstanding (1,300 comments) says:

    the problem is every generation from now on is going to be back at the trough for another feed. They have all seen how Honky rolls over and sticks his legs in the air.

    So it will continue as the browning of the population mean there are more and more mouths to feed from the trough.

    And the mealy mouthed Honkys give in so as not to cause trouble. Pathetic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    DG reliving his identity crisis … ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (11,702 comments) says:

    So long as a people feel aggrieved by their treatment, they will continue to seek a seettlement of that grievance. All settlements whether in the 1940s, 1990s or today, can only be sustainable so long as crown and iwi parties remain politically committed to what has been agreed. Should an iwi accept a settlement that is less than their objective, it maight be difficult to sustain in the future. Maori may want to come back to the table. In that event, the government would need to act – negotiate, settle or ignore. Likewise, government policies may be subject to change. A future government may, for example, legislate in a way that many today would see as a breach of treaty principles. The whoe field remains a contest of political ideas. It is futile to speak of full and final settlements – that is a rhetorical device only.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Shouldn’t that be ‘whull and whinal’, Mr Whinlayson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Sean (301 comments) says:

    To be fair, the iwi is asking for consideration of the fact that much of the land that was alienated is now in private hands and therefore, says the Crown, not able to be included in a settlement. A settlement could be reached where the Crown agreed to purchase certain identified blocks of land when and if these came to the market, perhaps up to an agreed limit. As long as this was agreed between the parties, it would be a full and final settlement, to be completed over time. Its really nothing to get in a fit over – any competent lawyer can draft this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. gravedodger (1,569 comments) says:

    @ lms 3 40, and the cause of your second Para is what happens when the “brown Baby factory” rolls on her back with her legs in the air and Honkey funds the spawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @lastmanstanding 3:40 pm; gravedodger 5:09 pm

    I think you should go and join Kyle Chapman’s lot, rather than hang out here. Much as I disagree with DPF on isues such as this, at least he isn’t a blatant racist (and misogynist).

    John Ansell, you may as well join them too. You are a bit more subtle, but of the same ilk. BTW, did you draft Doctor DB’s “Dear John” letter? Just wondering, because the pdf source info showed the author to be “John”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    The clearest example of a blatant racist (and misogynist) in NZ politics would be a candidate for parliament who is comfortable using expressions such as “white mother****ers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Longknives (4,868 comments) says:

    Lastmanstanding- You’ve been told! How dare you question the endless ‘Gravy Train’ of Treaty handouts? You evil Bigot you…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. oob (191 comments) says:

    Toad: I think you should go and join..

    You Toad, should go and join the remnants of your ideological comrades the Khmer Rouge, in the jungles of the Cambodian/Thai border.

    The Green Party represents an existential threat to New Zealand and the Kiwi way of life. The totalitarian police State that the Greens intend to impose upon our society is as unconscionable as a Green Party apparatchik criticising anyone else’s ideology.

    lastmanstanding is a Kiwi, interested in improving NZ society. No Green Party member can say the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. GJ (329 comments) says:

    I have a few well educated Maori friends who have consistently told me than in Maoridom any settlement is only for the Generation that negotiated it. The next generation is always free to have another crack if they want to. Let’s hope not!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    You can tell a well educated Murri when you see one by the size of the bone they wear.

    Its dimension is generally inversely proportional to the darkness of their skin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Never a truer word said Johnboy…..some of them are so big you just know they are going to have serious lower back issues in the future from lugging that shit around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Yes James you would think the lighter coloured ones would realise that but they wear the biggest bones.

    Guess they are trying to prove something to the others.

    Green party members seem to be the worst offenders and here was us philistines thinking they always took the healthy option.

    Toad may be able to explain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    DPF, why would anybody agree with the Minister, Finlayson has proved that you cannot trust a single word that comes out of his mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Johnboy 7:19 pm

    Not planning to explain anything to you, Johnboy.

    I will explain things to people who are prepared to listen. As you may have noticed, I go to some lengths to explain things here sometimes. And usually in moderate language as well.

    But no point in trying to explain anything to someone who is a racist piece of shit whose world evolves around analysing peoples’ skin colour.

    @oob 6:26 pm

    You are beneath replying to with any substance. As usual from you, no argument, just puerile abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Oh touchy tonight are we Toady. Here was me willing to discuss a serious health and safety issue and I am rebuked so cruelly by you.

    I hope your liver feels better and you are in a better mood for the glorious lovefest and smokeup at the marae next weekend.

    Give my profound regards to all the Ladies/Gentlemen/Others at the party. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @Johnboy.

    You nasty chap. Stop picking on the Toad. Go to your room and sing 6 verses of Kumbaya.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    I thought Green people were full of hope and the joys of life Elaycee and I merely wished to discuss a matter that may one day impinge on older Greens sense of wellness.

    I can’t believe the hurtful putdown Toady has given me. Here was me intending to join and turn my 10,000 acres over to the Party to create the first truly sustainable organic commune in Wainui.

    Fuck the arrogant prick. Solid energy can have it for their next opencast mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Johnboy 8:17 pm

    Solid energy can have it for their next opencast mine.

    I’m sure that’s where you would have gone, regardless of me, anyway.

    BTW, Johnboy, how do you cope with all those erections in that little house on the prairie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @Johnboy

    Leave a message on the Dominion Post tip line that gold has been discovered in the stream that runs through the back of your place. The value of your land will sky rocket overnight. Then take take the money and put your feet up. Let them mine, baby, mine.

    Isn’t life great?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    Purile john you are real crak up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Dazzaman (1,145 comments) says:

    lastmanstanding (474) Says:
    May 30th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
    the problem is every generation from now on is going to be back at the trough for another feed. They have all seen how Honky rolls over and sticks his legs in the air.

    So it will continue as the browning of the population mean there are more and more mouths to feed from the trough.

    And the mealy mouthed Honkys give in so as not to cause trouble. Pathetic

    Yer dull brained idiot, it’s the oligarchy who have benefited, the rest of us are stuck in struggle street……., yer mealy mouthed honky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Manolo (14,044 comments) says:

    I have to agree with big bruv: Tinkerbell Finlayson has lied all the way and cannot be trusted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    Yesterday I googled “princess te puea” and one of the websites which comes up (someone with more skill may wish to create a link to it) says that in the 1940’s Te Puea realised that what was being offered by Peter Fraser was paltry compensation, but took it for its symbolic value.

    In Michael King’s biography of Te Puea – recommended to me by a prominent lawyer acting for Tainui as the authoritative source on raupatu settlements in the 40’s – the account is completely different. King says that at the final meeting between Fraser and his advisors and Te Puea and hers, Fraser unexpectedly offered an extra yearly payment for 45 years over and above the 5000 pounds to be paid every year for ever.

    King says Te Puea was so surprised at Frasers generosity – evidently arising from him being moved by oratory about Tainui’s plight – that she urged her chief advisor to his feet to accept the unexpectedly generous offer before it could be retracted.

    Both accounts cannot be true. Gareth Hughes and the young idealists in the Green and Maori Parties have been raised on an unmitigated diet of the first version. Because they are unable to think critically and assess the value of what is claimed on a website against the researches of New Zealand’s pre-eminent historian of his generation, young Maori raised on a grievance mentality think “we wuz robbed” in the 40’s, which justified the settlements of the 90’s.

    As GJ has noted above, the generation currently at school are no doubt being told the 1990’s settlements were also inadequate. Unless this process is stopped, we are heading for racial discord not seen since the 1860’s. Given that I have beautiful mixed race children, that scares me greatly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Peter Cresswell said it better.

    Cresswell said…
    Partnership? The Treaty was not about ‘partnership’ of the form now espoused — neither word nor concept appeared in the document. It was not a Treaty offering permanent welfare, nor a tax-paid gravy train into perpetuity. In three short articles it simply offered the introduction of British law, and the rights and protections that were then protected by British law. That was it.

    Read Full Article: One-Law-For-All

    The article must be a compulsory reading for the likes of Toad and Green Party members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Manolo (14,044 comments) says:

    The article must be a compulsory reading for the likes of Toad and Green Party members.

    No, it would be a comple waste of time. The Luddites share a profound guilt complex that can only be atoned by giving away other people’s money in the form a perpetual gravy train. Of course, the natives will not let the opportunity pass and are happy to receive of any dollars that come their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. hj (7,063 comments) says:

    @Toad

    CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in favour of these three bills and this process with some humility as a Pākehā. I acknowledge that neither of our two Māori members of caucus whakapapa to these rohe, but I acknowledge the importance of us as Pākehā standing up for Te Tiriti o Waitangi….

    The Green Party recognises with a heavy heart the histories behind these settlement processes, and we reject the concept of full and final, even though we are supporting progress for these iwi. How can it be full and final settlement when every claim, added together, is less than the money used to bail out South Canterbury Finance? The degree of recompense the Crown actually gives compared with the losses needs to be analysed in the context of the instant bail-out provisions for failed financiers who took advantage of the Government guarantee. Is the poverty and loss of all these whānau over more than 150 years worth so little in comparison with the money the Crown is prepared to spend on businesses that have been greedy and at times misleading in their behaviour? And they had to ask only once! Although we celebrate the progress for these iwi, we have concerns about the scale of redress. It is not full and it is not final, no matter what political spin we place on it.

    We wish the Crown to recognise that history is not fixed. [pun?] Dialogue and negotiation are a permanent feature of te Tiriti, and settlements need to be negotiated with no absolute requirement that the iwi involved be silent in the future. Stories are still emerging about how land and resources were alienated, and issues such as the takutai moana, sadly, have the potential to create new claims. The Government needs to accept that, as in all significant relationships, everything has to be open for discussion in an honest and realistic manner. The next generation of Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Pāhauwera will have something to say to the Crown, and they should be listened to. That something may be about fairness and justice, because they will do the maths and see that South Canterbury Finance gets instant redress, while their whānau do not.
    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/0/b/1/49HansD_20110517_00000653-Nga-Wai-o-Maniapoto-Waipa-River-Bill-Ngati.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    Falafulu: that is a superb article…it should form part of the first lecture in any course on NZ history or constitutional law…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote