The Tuhoe settlement

September 12th, 2012 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

announced:

After consultation with iwi members, Te Kotahi a have accepted the Crown’s offer to settle the historical claims of Ngai , Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Christopher Finlayson and Ngāi Chief negotiator Tamati Kruger announced today.

“The Crown and Ngai Tuhoe will now work together to develop a Deed of Settlement by the end of 2012,” Mr Finlayson said. “Once completed, the Deed will be initialled by the negotiators. If the deed is then ratified by iwi members, the settlement will be signed and given effect through legislation.”

That is a huge achievement. Many thought no settlement would ever be reached. The history of grievances so extensive, that a resolution acceptable to the Crown and Tuhoe was so difficult. Some may associate Tuhoe with the clown Tame Iti, but that is unfair. They have just over 30,000 members and there were some appalling things happen in the past such as the Volkner Incident.

I’m no fan of these claims for water and wind and the like. But I do think settling the historical grievances is very important – both for the Iwi involved and New Zealand. The historical settlements have been taking place over the last 20 years and the end is in sight.

Patrick Gower blogs:

The Government’s settlement with Tuhoe can be described in one word: monumental.

Monumental because it overcomes over 150 years of grievances.

Monumental because of the reconciliation of the most fractured relationship between the Crown and Maori.

Monumental in financial redress – it matches the other big settlements even though Tuhoe is not as big population wise.

Monumental because Te Urewera – a National Park – will instead become its own legal entity.

And monumental because of the possibilities that “Mana Motuhake” opens up for Tuhoe to develop as its own nation in the decades to come.

Tuhoe suffered some of the worst breaches by the Crown – the “scorched earth” policy, confiscation, the execution of unarmed prisoners – known at at the time as “extermination”.

But now Minister Chris Finlayson has found a way to settle it.

He has reached agreement with Tuhoe and for that he needs to be applauded – it will be his legacy.

The details of the settlement are here. With Te Urerewa the settlement is:

Who will own Te Urewera?

No one will own Te Urewera. The members of the governance board, both Crown and Ngai Tuhoe nominees, will act in the interests of Te Urewera, like trustees or directors of a company. They will not act on behalf of either the Crown or Ngai Tuhoe.

Will Te Urewera still be a National Park

Te Urewera will have a new legal identity established, and have its governance and management arrangements set out in its own act of Parliament. Key provisions of the National Parks Act will be included in the Te Urewera legislation, including protections for the natural and historical heritage and public access.

The new legislation will ensure that the land is managed to an internationally accepted standard for national parks.

What about public access?

Public access will be guaranteed on the same terms as now.

Will this create a precedent for other national parks?

No. This settlement addresses particular history and circumstances. Te Urewera is unique because the park and Ngai Tuhoe’s core area of interest are almost identical. There are many pockets of Tuhoe land in and around the Park and the two are inseparable and in many cases indistinguishable. Popular roads and hiking trails currently cross private Tuhoe land.

Also some details on the history:

Ngai Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Crown had no official presence in Te Urewera before the 1860s. Ngai Tuhoe, remained in full control of their customary lands until 1865 when the Crown confiscated much of their most productive land, even though they were not in rebellion and the confiscation was not directed at Ngai Tuhoe. The prejudice created by the confiscation was exacerbated by the Compensation Court process which returned much of the confiscated land to other.

After the confiscation the Crown waged war in Te Urewera until 1871 as it sought to apprehend those responsible for the 1865 death of Crown official, and then capture Te Kooti following his escape from Crown detention. The Crown extensively used “scorched earth” tactics, and was responsible for the execution of unarmed prisoners and the killing of non-combatants. Crown officer at the time described it as “extermination”.

In 1870 Ngai Tuhoe were forced out of Te Urewera and detained at Te Putere where they suffered further hardship. The wars caused Ngai Tuhoe to suffer widespread starvation and extensive loss of life.

In 1871 peace was restored to Te Urewera when the Crown withdrew its forces and agreed to leave Ngai Tuhoe to manage their own affairs.

Between the 1870s and the 1890s Crown pressure and the claims of other iwi led to the introduction into Te Urewera of the Native Land Court, surveying and land purchases despite Te Whitu Tekau opposition. In 1875 the Crown induced Ngāi Tuhoe to sell a large area of land at Waikaremoana by threatening to confiscate their interests if they did not sell.

Off memory the major outstanding settlement now is for the Far North Iwi.

Tags: , ,

75 Responses to “The Tuhoe settlement”

  1. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    The maori already control who enters Te Urewera national park.

    If you go in against their wishes they may kill or injure you.

    Someone posted a video a couple of years ago of a very ugly clash between these ‘maori’ and some ‘honkies’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Considering that Tuhoe didnt sign up to the Treaty then i think theyve got a lot more than they had any right to expect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Im disgusted by it and all arranged by tinkerbelle..a list mp who represents nobody. Kiwis been reamed again.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    And listening to Tamiti Kruger it seems they wont be happy until theyve got the status of an independant nation. I think everyone should understand that this aint no “full and final” agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    That is a huge achievement.

    How many more of this achievements can NZ afford, while we keep borrowing 300+ million a week and counting?
    Finlayson is selling us down the river.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    and how long will it be before he gets his dame…er…knighthood? Maybe they can recycle montrose grahams grubby one

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Can someone tell me that if Tuhoe didn’t sign the treaty, on what grounds are the spineless Nats no doubt handing over truckloafds of taxpayers cash?

    [DPF: On the basis their land was stolen from them]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Some real intelligent comment here from ignorent rednecks who either don’t know or couldn’t give a f**k about our history.

    Comments like these give the likes of that racist Harawira oxygen

    The bit about not signing the treaty takes the biscuit … so that gave the Govt the right to confiscate their land!?

    I object strongly to any notion that Maori own the water or wind but I acknowledge Maori have historical grievances that require settlement.

    I support the settlement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Matt (227 comments) says:

    Calling this a Treaty of Waitangi settlement is an insult to those Maori who signed and kept faith with that treaty. There were no doubt things done by and in the name of previous governments which perhaps ought to be atoned for, but not with reference to any treaty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    ” ……. And monumental because of the possibilities that “Mana Motuhake” opens up for Tuhoe to develop as its own nation in the decades to come.”

    If Gowe rand all the silly fools that subscribe to that view lived on Earth rather than Planet La La, we could all celebrate now.

    ” …. develop as its own nation in the decades to come ” YEAH RIGHT.

    Just think, no bennies paid, no more Broad KGB-like raids, an international airport……. but ….,. border control, border diputes, a border war, drug smuggling, cannabis production centre of the South Pacific…. et al – all resulting in demands for a NEW settlement.

    The best settlement would have been $170million – take it or leave it – and go away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    ..redneck…racist..blah blah…why is it you tools always revert to those 2 words when you lose ya rag…? ( btw ignorant, not ignorent )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Barry (910) Says:
    September 12th, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Considering that Tuhoe didnt sign up to the Treaty then i think theyve got a lot more than they had any right to expect.

    so you apparently think that you and others have the “right” to this land. What a fuck wit.
    You display your complete ignorance of everything NZ. Fuck off back where you came from and reclaim your land from wherever that is. dumbarse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    I agree with Ross Miller (1,501). It was a horrendous part of our history and this is the right thing to do. All the people who are up in arms, how would you feel if it happened to you? It wasn’t even that long ago. That sort of shit doesn’t just get forgotten. In saying that, the statement ‘And monumental because of the possibilities that “Mana Motuhake” opens up for Tuhoe to develop as its own nation in the decades to come.’ does concern me a bit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Probably good if you read “Unbridled Lands” by Judith Binney before you postulate about things you know nothing about.
    You could also read “Mihaia” by Binney and two others.
    Fascinating history of the area.

    And I think I am right in saying that the book Unbridled Lands is the only researched book that has been published about any Maori Claim. Which should give an indication of the openness of Tuhoe in working to this settlement.

    Its a worthwhile read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    No reason why it should concern you Cunningham as they were granted that right by Seddon I think, in about 1896. A right that was never ever allowed and is one of the causes of the grievance.
    The agreement is for their area and is about administering that area. Lets face it they would have to be bad to be worse than our Govt. and our Local Bodies. In my experience they were good custodians until it was handed to DOC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Longknives (4,737 comments) says:

    “And listening to Tamiti Kruger it seems they wont be happy until theyve got the status of an independant nation”

    One wonders what would be the backbone of this fantastic new ‘Nation’s’ economy??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    I guess this will mean less access to the ‘honkies’.

    If they own the park then thats their right.

    But in saying that, this will never end. Whoever thinks this is a final settlement is deluded.

    That is what I’m against.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    bawhahaha! Censorship reigns on the left leaning KB ! No wonder NZ’s in the state its in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. anonymouse (715 comments) says:

    Who will own Te Urewera? No one will own Te Urewera.

    Now this will be fun to watch, NZ’s Cadastre holds that every property title has an owner, be it freehold, leasehold, Māori land or Crown land., Unlike the foreshore and seabed, while Cadastre existed for some portions that were in private hands , or port companies etc, most of the foreshore simply did not exist in terms of legal title,

    Te Urawera actually does exist in the NZ Cadastre, there is a piece of paper that currently says the national Park is owned by the Government, so it will be interesting how they solve the problem of who/what will be listed as the titles owner on the new title, – I am fairly sure that simply leaving the field blank is not an acceptable solution…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Good morning Viking2 – I get the feeling that you got out of the wrong side of the bed today…….better luck tomorrow.

    This settlement has been reported as a Treaty settlement. Call it whatever you like – but one things its not is a Treaty Of Waitangi Settlement.

    But leaving any fact of the treaty out of it, Tuhoe took a particular pathway back whenever it was because they thought it was the best thing for them at the time. However it wasnt – but thats life. You make the wrong decision as an individual or a group and you have to live with it. Tuhoe had the option of either confronting and fighting against the ‘Crown’ or of co-operating with it. The question really was “Whose going to win out in the long run”.
    In hindsight it was obvious that trying to maintain the status quo then of a whole heap of individual tribes doing their own thing wasnt going to be viable – but Tuhoe thought it would be and thus founght against the crown.

    Needeless to say the Crown got pissed off and Tuhoe have thus suffered years and years of unhappiness – which was the result of the decision they made at the time. Theres no sense in trying to blame any and everyone else for that situation. The Crown (or governments ) no where in the world have ever reacted in anyway but with the full force of control to situations like this.
    Just be bloody thankful that it wasnt the french or the Dutch that got control of the place.

    Now I hope tomorrow when you get out bed that you get out of bed on the right side.
    As for me I certainly wont be sitting around wailing and moping about my forebears getting kicked off their land in Scotland or of being transported for stealing a loaf of bread in Ireland. Living in the past never works – you have to make the best of what youve got and to plan that your children have a better life than you did, and the your grandchildren have a better life than your children etc. Living a life of blame wont do that – and it condemns your children to repeat your miserable life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Bed Rater (239 comments) says:

    Whatever your view on reparation for historical grievances, surely any idiot can see the fallacy in arguing that the treaty should hold no power in modern matters, AND that a tribe can’t claim under the treaty because it wasn’t originally party to the agreement.

    “Censorship reigns on the left leaning KB ! No wonder NZ’s in the state its in.”

    Golly, this blog wields more power than I thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott (1,792 comments) says:

    Ahh – the Volkner Incident. Some appalling things apparently did happen DPF. This from Wikipedia – “On 2 March the missionary, Carl Völkner, discovered that his Māori congregation had moved on from Christianity to Hau Hauism. Although warned to stay away from the town, on his next visit he was captured, put on trial and hanged from a tree, and his body was decapitated an hour later. The Hau Hau prophet, Kereopa Te Rau, re-entered the church and conducted a service with Völkner’s head in the pulpit beside him. At a suitably dramatic moment he plucked out the missionary’s eyeballs and swallowed them. The news of the murder caused great alarm and anger among Pākehā.”

    Like there was a war and one side won and one side lost. After that there was one law for all. Which is all one can expect really. These events including the murder of the missionary Carl Volkner happened in 1865. And apparently we still feel guilty about it? Our treatment of the Maori after that I mean. Has anyone ask for compensation for the murder of the poor missionary? Guilt seems only to go one way.

    So because of Pakeha guilt we have now transferred millions of dollars of taxpayers money to 30,000 people. We also give them some kind of rights to land. Not that they will be appeased or grateful. Apparently according to the TV news report last night the next step is Maori sovereignty for the area.

    Is there any way we can be done with this Maori separatism and appeasement? It is very expensive for a start and not sure the poor taxpayer can continue to afford it? Is there any way this National government could concentrate on the things it was elected to do? Like fix the economy and get people back to work. All people – not just one race – all New Zealanders.

    This National government is no different to the last lot. If they are not redefining marriage to appease gays, which was last week’s fiasco, they are selling our birthright to a small group of people of a particular race. Can they possibly get a clue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. campit (467 comments) says:

    I never knew that Tuhoe didn’t sign the treaty. If this is a treaty settlement then shouldn’t they sign now?!

    With this settlement Tuhoe apparently haven’t had to cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty. Do Tuhoe have the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects if they didn’t sign the treaty? Presumably they must, by the very nature of this settlement and because the offer also includes the implementation of the social Services Management Plan announced last month, under which government agencies will work with Tuhoe to ensure better delivery of social services such as housing, education and health to its communities.

    I totally support Tuhoe being compensated, but I’m confused about why this is deemed to be a Treaty settlement if they didn’t sign in 1840, or now for that matter.

    Practically speaking though it would seem that Tuhoe have now implicitly signed the Treaty in accepting this settlement, but where does this leave them in terms of the second Article, where they cede sovereignty to the Crown? It will be interesting to see how the concept of Mana Motuhake plays out in practice and the limits that Tuhoe will be allowed to go to “develop as its own nation”. Does it mean the right to raise taxes, for example? Could they become a tax haven like Monaco? This aspect seems vague at this point, and open to interpretation.

    [DPF: It doesn't matter that Tuhoe didn't sign the Treaty. Enough tribes signed it that NZ declared this country a British colony. That applied to all of NZ. The NZ Govt has decided to settle any breaches of the commitments it made to Maori in the Treaty. This applies to all Maori.

    Even if there had been no Treaty, the Crown would not have had the right to confiscate land for no goodcause under the common law]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/7656758/Deal-windfall-for-Tainui

    Says it all really, no two versions of history are identical and in many cases not even similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    I don’t mind the settlement, but I am concerned that Tuhoe apparently are still going to agitate for a separate nation. As far as i am concerned, New Zealand is one country and I am determined it will stay that way. No separation. No way. And that arrogant little technocratic prick Finlayson can stick that where the sun don’t shine.

    Tamiti Kruger was on the radio saying he could foresee a time when they had their own tax system, to which the obvious question is what will they be taxing? Or do the Tuhoe expect the New Zealand government to continue to fund their little “country” while they busily erect border checkpoints, stop paying their taxes and create their own legal system? The last thing New Zealand needs or should want is a failed micro-state with desperate and lawless halfwits like Tame Iti and his mates roaming about the bush thinking they are hard done by and subject to no ones laws but their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Lance (2,654 comments) says:

    Good grief!
    fish_boy is talking sense and I agree with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    The last thing New Zealand needs or should want is a failed micro-state with desperate and lawless halfwits like Tame Iti and his mates roaming about the bush thinking they are hard done by and subject to no ones laws but their own.

    Que Kaiparea council. Tga City council and most other local bodies.

    Barry, what pisses me is the lazy lack of research or indeed education that so many of the noisy pricks on Kiwiblog suffer from.

    And yes they never signed the tOW but the Govt. included Tuhoe in the process of settling the greivances. So Govt. choice. and for once I agree with Findlayson. Spent lots of great days in that country and would love to go back. Legs ain’t what they used to be unfortunately.

    Waikaremoana is the most spiritual place one could go. Haven’t experienced it then you need to go and do so. Not religious just spiritual.

    Gret trout as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    Its not the full and final settlement, it never will be untill Tuhoe get their nation state they want so badly. For anyone to think otherwise suggests they probably still believe in Santa.

    Its a settlement of most of the benefits for Tuhoe, and none for the Crown, just costs. Be done with it and give them the area as a nation state, put up a border fence, and let them run their country as they see fit, with no support from the rest of NZ.
    Pretty sure one Tame Iti would be pissed when he could no longer get a visa to visit NZ.
    Think of all the money the rest of us would save if we didn’t have to pay for benefits, and other such govt services in the area. They’d have a dam for power, farming and forestry for industry, plus I’m sure a few other industries that’d be illeagal this side of the border. And if they wanted to leave the Tuhoe nation to get anywhere else, they’d have to pay a visitor levy to the NZ govt when they crossed the border, unless they could of course find a backer to build them an international airport inside their nation. And then they’d have to pay for the use of NZ airspace to fly outside their borders.
    Win win really, can’t see a downside.

    After all they didn’t sign the treaty, so why should they have to be part of NZ, and get all the benefits of it.
    Give them what they want I say. Not like we loose much, and those that really want to could still get their passport out and go visit.
    And it wouldn’t set a precident, as Tuhoe are the only tribe to not sign the treaty I believe. So the rest wouldn’t be able to ask for similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Give Tuhoe their separate state.

    Introduce strict border controls. No support from the NZ tax payer. Ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Calling it a Treaty settlement is a bit confusing when they never actually signed the Treaty, however it is the colonial British govt of NZ responsible for this rather then Tuhoe. Shortly after the Treaty was signed the early governors Hobson and Fitzroy decided that the Treaty applied to all iwi, even those who refused to sign. Several powerful chiefs openly declared that the Treaty could not possibly apply to them because they didn’t sign it.

    Taraia, a Thames Valley chief, directly challenged this ruling by killing and partially eating several enemies in Tauranga, then rolling their heads into a Christian prayer meeting. The Colonial Office officially then ruled that the Treaty did apply to all Maori even if they refused to sign.

    However if the Tuhoe have accepted this settlement that means they also must accept the Colonial Office ruling that the Treaty does apply to them including the part about giving up their sovereignty. They can’t still be asking to be a sovereign nation. They tried that, they fought a war, they lost. In the same year they were being attacked by Pakeha US forces under Gen. Sherman burnt Atlanta and then laid waste to much of Georgia and South Carolina, burning their way through towns and villages to the sea and then north to Virginia. He said, “War is hell, war is cruelty,” and he destroyed his own people’s land (he was a Southerner himself, loyal to the Union). Yet there are no calls for compensation from Southern whites today. They haven’t forgotten what happened, they still love to re-enact it, but they’ve moved on.

    Also Te Kooti’s war was not a massive attack on Tuhoe by Pakeha, it was a civil war pitting Maori against Maori as well. Te Kooti even started on the Pakeha side but after being betrayed and jailed switched sides. He massacred pakeha civilians and Maori alike. The Volkner Incident, a case of Maori violence against Pakeha, was just one case of brutality in that war.

    I do think iwi and hapu wronged by the Crown have a right to compensation, but they must accept the Treaty now and accept that this settles all their claims and they should be given no further special treatment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    This is just looting people who presently live in NZ and who never had any part in what occurred and do not have any responsibility for it.

    The grievance industry is a separatist racist farce driving a deep wedge into NZ’s social cohesion and it is not the good thing so many people say it is.

    It is a major mistake and time will prove it so.

    One of so many similar mistakes made by the National/Labour socialist co-operative.

    NZ is split along racial grounds today much more than it ever has been in its history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    fish_boy – New Zealand has not been one country for some time and it is getting worse. It is now morphing away from the old kiwi New Zealand, into the new Aotearoa. But if the government was giving me money and “mana” for making stupid separatist claims such as water, air and statutory boards for appeasing taniwha , I would probably do it too.

    Rhetorical question – how many more people are going to leave, before the country simply can’t afford it any more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    Give them their nation state. Cut support.

    All upside for the NZ taxpayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Tom Barker (143 comments) says:

    The historical fact that Tuhoe didn’t sign the Treaty in 1840 needs to be understood in context. First, it doesn’t mean that they refused to sign it. They were never given the opportunity to sign. They lived mainly in inland areas, inaccessible to the small number of Pakeha who were touting copies of the Treaty around for signatures. In think it’s entirely possible that if Tuhoe chiefs were invited to sign the Treaty, they would have done so. Second, they were by no means the only major tribe that didn’t sign. The paramount chiefs of both Waikato and Ngati Porou were asked to do so, and refused. Many other tribes are also not represted among the 500 signatories to the Treaty. However the Crown regared the intial signing at Witangi itself on 6 Feb. 1840 as sufficient on its own to transfer sovereignty of the country. All the later signatures were simply added endorsement, without legal status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Like Ive said before..its all gona end in tears. NZ’ers are at breaking point over this shit , those that disagree simply have their heads in the sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    The British decision that having some iwi sign the Treaty was enough to take over the whole country is one of the biggest legal flaws with the whole document. The British for some reason decided to view Maori as a single entity when they knew that wasn’t right. In North America they’d spent centuries negotiating with different tribes. They knew in the 1600s that signing a treaty with the Wampanoags didn’t bind their mortal enemies the Naragansetts to it. They signed a treaty with some tribes to wipe out others.

    In fact the British were legally only given by right of cession the sections of NZ controlled by hapu which signed the Treaty. All the other areas they essentially took by right of conquest in the various NZ Wars or by later agreements to cede the land.

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

    Re Tuhoi not signing the Treaty, note section 6, Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

    6 Jurisdiction of Tribunal to consider claims

    (1) Where any Maori claims that he or she, or any group of Maoris of which he or she is a member, is or is likely to be prejudicially affected—

    (a) by any ordinance of the General Legislative Council of New Zealand, or any ordinance of the Provincial Legislative Council of New Munster, or any provincial ordinance, or any Act (whether or not still in force), passed at any time on or after 6 February 1840; or

    (b) by any regulations, order, proclamation, notice, or other statutory instrument made, issued, or given at any time on or after 6 February 1840 under any ordinance or Act referred to in paragraph (a); or

    (c) by any policy or practice (whether or not still in force) adopted by or on behalf of the Crown, or by any policy or practice proposed to be adopted by or on behalf of the Crown; or

    (d) by any act done or omitted at any time on or after 6 February 1840, or proposed to be done or omitted, by or on behalf of the Crown,—

    and that the ordinance or Act, or the regulations, order, proclamation, notice, or other statutory instrument, or the policy or practice, or the act or omission, was or is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty, he or she may submit that claim to the Tribunal under this section.

    “…any Maori claims that he or she, or any group of Maoris of which he or she is a member…” means that the Waitangi Tribunal has jurisdiction irrespective of whether the claimant iwi or hapu or claimants’ iwi or hapu actually signed the Treaty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. kowtow (8,439 comments) says:

    Calling this a “settlement” is a sick joke.

    No treaty settlement has seen an end to the grievance industry.

    Just another chapter in what has become the great New Zealand rip off.

    Binding referenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    The ETS is an albatross around the neck of the NZ economy. And yet Key and the National government refuse to abandon the costly scam.

    Meanwhile, Nick Smith, the father of this fraud, maintains a low profile awaiting for an opportunity to return to Labour lite’s Cabinet. You ought to be joking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. smttc (752 comments) says:

    Findlayson was heard to say on Red Radio this morning that Te Urewera would not become some San Marino or Lietchenstein. God knows why he chose two wealthy European examples by way of analogy. You can’t build a nation on $170,000,000. By my reckoning, it is only $5,666.00 per head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. smttc (752 comments) says:

    Toad, I think you miss the point. How can you argue that some act of the Crown against you is a breach of the TOW (ie a breach of your rights) if you never signed the TOW and therefore you are not a party to it. I think Rightandleft @ 10.30am has reconciled the two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Public access will be guaranteed on the same terms as now.

    Really? The Stuff article (and Dom Post this morning) says:

    The deal promises continued public access, and Mr Kruger said Tuhoe’s preference was not to charge visitors.

    Yeah, right… Promising access to the park is not the same as promising free access to the park.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Griff (7,679 comments) says:

    Pull the pin on the whole stupid industry
    just because a bunch of idiots complain of some injustice to their great ,great, great, grandfather is no reason to give them any thing accept a hanky to cry on
    If any tribe was allowed to wage guerilla campaigns against the rest of New Zealand would this country be the place it is to day?
    Moari signed to stop the inter tribal conflict that had decimated their people and are now claiming money for the resulting force of law
    NO APARTHEID. no separate development. no racist laws. no racist elections. no racism in the future for this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. beautox (422 comments) says:

    What’s impressive is how long they keep these grievances going for. I have no idea if my ancestors from the 1800s got ripped off, cheated or whatever. And I don’t care. They are DEAD and GONE. But these guys use the fact that some of their ancestors lost the land they thought they owned because they could not defend it against aggressors (which was what land “ownership” was all about in those days. If you can’t defend it , it’s not yours).

    And now they want me (not the crown…I don’t see QE2 putting her hand in her pocket) and other taxpayers to pay them for this.

    I think you’re wrong David, to suggest that historical “grievances” need to be settled. BS. They need to be FORGOTTEN. There have been so many damn bad things that have happened in the past, and the past is where they should be kept, along with the dead people that it affected. Yes it was bad, and the people concerned were ripped off. But there is nothing we can do to fix it for them because they are dead. Their dropbeat, half-caste offspring do not deserve anything from me.

    The whole idea that grievances that happened in history (ie all concerned are long dead) need to be addressed and fixed is ONE BIG LIE and needs to be forgotten. Until then we have endless conflict in this country.

    What would it be like in Europe if there were these big courts holding hearings into the Smith family, who had their house bombed by the Germans, or the Ediger family who were all killed by English bombing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    I am with Dime and foxtrot-whatever on this one …in fact I feel a bit “plagiarised” foxtrot: Back when when the Herald was a newspaper, I had on op-ed piece published (30 October 2007) which included all the points you make about the proposed “independent state” of Tuhoe. It’s probably simply a case of great minds think alike.

    Leave aside the arguments about whether you can have a “treaty settlement” when the “treaty” itself is a legal nullity, and this particular iwi didn’t sign it. Leave aside the legal niceties of who can own land if it is not the government, or a person or group of people. It is perfectly clear from what Kruger and others have said that this is just Act I of the drama. They want nothing less than an independent state – along with the financial benefits which currently accrue from the hated coloniser. Give them the first, while making it clear they cannot also have the second. This $170 million can be seed money.

    As for “fishboys” comment, it cannot be him. Far too reasoned. But to whoever did make that comment, we have “desparate and lawless halfwits like Tame Iti” roaming the bush now. We also have them roaming the rest of the country. One of them turned up the other day at Barry Hart’s former farm trying to intimidate the new owner. Iti and Kemara (when they get out of jail), Bailey, Lockett, Signer and a couple of dozen others would no doubt be delighted to take up residence in the new independent state. Then we can have them declared “prohibited immigrants” to New Zealand.

    Fortunately many of them have helpfully tattooed themselves so they are readily recognisable. Modern technology will soon pick up the rest if they decide the Maori Paradise is not to their liking, and wish to come back and live amongst the oppressor. This all sounds harsh, and yes, “redneck”. But no other solution is going to work long term. At the very least, my children’s generation will be hit up for the next “settlement”. By that time of course, Te Urewera will be entry by fee only. I can live with that. As beautiful a place as it is, we have plenty of other National Parks.

    Beautox: Excellent Sir/Madam. Particularly the last bit about compensation for bomb damage. Half of eastern Europe was dispossessed in WW II and never got their property back. They moved on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    I see the word “extermination” is mentioned above re Tuhoe — just another case of “WOODA, CUUDA, SHUUDA” eh!
    This crap has been going on now for 30 years and the bludgers have been handed 100’s of millions (does someone have the actual total) and tribes are now rated as some of New Zealands biggest businesses. WHY THEN – are most beneficiaries, prison inmates, child bashers, and defendants in court still Maori???? Answer – the good old tribal system where the cheifs keep all the koha and the tribes people get nothing. They want our welfare system but these FDLM (falling down laughing maoris) just don’t believe in it. Also living proof throwing money at them changes nothing.
    Why would they when they’ve got the actual tax payers working their arses of to keep them living with their 17th century wish list and tribal system firmly in place. Bring back the Moriori please – whoops – they actually were exterminated.
    Australia is looking better and better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. SHG (316 comments) says:

    In 1843 the British Colonial Office ruled that the Treaty bound all Maori tribes in NZ regardless of whether they’d signed it or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Many of the comments on this thread are in the nature of “Oh, give them what they want and they will play nicely” There is a name for that philosophy, and it’s called “appeasement.”

    It is very easy to forget that in 1923 the Nazis were regarded as a tiny fringe group of nutters – one among many. By 1933, after the then establishment brought them into the democratic process so as to “fence them in”, they were running Germany. Seven years later they were attempting to take over the world.

    And yes, I am quite serious in making this comparison, and yes, I HAVE taken my meds this morning.

    SHG: And your point is? Since when did “rulings” by the British Colonial Office hold any sway with the tangata whenua?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “There is a name for that philosophy, and it’s called “appeasement.””

    Quite true. Shame you advocate this strategy yourself in so many other political areas. Not the least with your willingness to use the term “redneck” and to so often pre-apologise for your views.

    Tugging your forelock to your “betters” won’t get you anywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SHG (316 comments) says:

    David Garrett said:

    SHG: And your point is? Since when did “rulings” by the British Colonial Office hold any sway with the tangata whenua?

    A common response from posters above seems to be “BUT THEY DIDN’T SIGN THE TREATY HOW CAN THEY EVEN FILE A TREATY CLAIM WHEN THE TREATY DOESN’T APPLY TO THEM”.

    But it does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Surely this transfer of vast wealth means they will no longer be eligible for state benefits, so there will be no net cost to taxpayers: what was paid on the one hand is saved on the other.

    Yes, I’m sure that’s how it works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    170 million dollars of appeasement money paid by an increasingly appeasing (and spineless) government.
    Finlayson will continue to disburse (read waste) public funds in the vain hope of keeping the greedy natives happy. He’s dreaming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Red: Fuck off and get professional help. You are tiresome.

    Manolo: Prudence dictates that my only comment on yours is “spot on sir.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    GODWINNED :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    Tariana Turia : Tribes Treaty Claims 1.5% of what was taken. Settlements can’t be full and final.
    Nati apa Treaty Claims. Our young people have taken that settlement through and because I have particular views about settlements I’ve had to remain [“ “] or I’ll put our young people off. But they have worked constructively with our government and they’ve got about
    1.5% of what was taken. TT says “no government cant expect people settlements to be full and final if justice isn’t served.”
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ckpt/2008/09/05/waatea_news

    remember the whole country was once the property of Maori tribal collectives and the wasteland theory has been “discredited”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    It would be interesting to see how the Greens would find money for liberal welfare policies and a strong commitment to tinorangitiratanga.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    “the wasteland theory has been discredited”.

    Can someone, anyone – Maori, European or Marsian please show me the ancient Maoris title transfer office (like the Romans had hundreds of years before we settle here) or any records of ownership. They may well have nested on a piece of land until they were killed by the advancing tribe. They didn’t even have a written language to my knowledge. Please correct me if I am wrong. Folk tales, bed time stories and lies is what we are going on now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    This settlement opens up again, again further settlements for Ngai Tahu and Tainui who will want more money now, as entitled under their agreements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    What “liarbors a joke” said. Its disgusting. I wonder if he will end up in jail like the last 90s national sycophant did.

    Now we pay massive taxes to access OUR national parks. Next the beaches, guaranteed. Sick National, dont vote for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    wtfunz (14) Says:
    September 12th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    “the wasteland theory has been discredited”.
    ….
    according to
    http://roiamaori.wordpress.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    The whole race relations/treaty debate fails a normal discussion. It requires an argument map (or something). I’m of the view that the treaty doesn’t proscribe any solution since the egg yoke is what non Maori own privately but everything else is Maori’s. I believe it was signed under a form of duress, reflecting Maori power at that instant in time. I see Tuhoe as separatists as are all iwi more or less. Their pain and angst reflects their own choices as they could have let it go as in the past, that is how society heals, not by maximising past injustices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Oh come on, it’ll be worth it to see DOC get handed theirs on a plate:

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2012/09/ureweras-go-to-ngai-tuhoe-great.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. That’s how much is earmarked for iwi settlements. That’s the GDP of the 90s. That’s the legacy left to your children by dirty duggy and fiddles one of the national party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. eedd1 (1 comment) says:

    Tuhoe got their land confiscated even though they didnt sign the treaty?

    NZ is not one nation, Im Maori, NZer but I do not recognise the BRITISH monarch as mine.

    So every other country can privatise Water but not the indigenous people of NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Heh this is funny, it seems pakeha kiwis are in favour of it while visitors are not.
    Sorry visitors it is none of your damn business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. kowtow (8,439 comments) says:

    Finlayson on the news correcting some reporter that full and final is just that,hahahahaah when Ngai Tahu and Tainui have top up/relativity clauses so will always get top ups.

    What part of relativity clauses is full and final Mr Finlayson?

    Jeez those Nats really did shaft the country back in the ’90’s.And they’re doing it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Disgusting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Finlayson. National and theirnrich mates are right in the thick of milking this cash cow.

    Who speaks for us? The hard working nzers who have to pay for all these govt scams.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Kevin – thanks for the TRILLION Dollar figure. Do you have a source? Please don’t just knock the National Party. I hate what I am seeing them continue – it is not what I was looking for from “my Party”. Labour and the Gweens are as bad, or worse, as they all want the poor Maori’s votes more therefore they are better at whoring themselves to this cause.
    Lets face it – WE NEED TO LOOK AT OURSELVES AS A COUNTRY – what are we doing individually and in groups to stop this bullshit? Or are we so down trodden we feel disempowered?
    All our political parties are now so biased by the MMP system that they know the only way to survive is down the middle politics. It is almost impossible to tell labour from National and visa versa. Shit – National today made Childcare compulsory for beneficiaries spawn – nanny state ala dear Helen and the carpet lickers. MMP gives life to lunatics factions eg.the Gweens and Winston (god save us). As a result of this down the middle crap many more people are swing voters. ie. they’ve pissed me off too much, I want that interest free student loan, he’s says grey power knows what NZ needs – us! and vote accordingly. New Zealanders have lost what it means to vote for the Tories because they believe the harder you work the more you should earn and keep. Labour voters have forgotten, apart from the Gweens, that they are communists and advocate everyone should have the same amount no matter that you are a genius or like to work harder than your average native.
    Grumpyoldhori – you’re wrong about this honky. You must have secret native powers to work out who’s who eh!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RF (1,396 comments) says:

    wtfunz …. Nice one

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    “To date $1,018,697 million has been committed to final and comprehensive settlements and several part settlements”. In the 2008 report of the race relations commissioner. http://www.hrc.co.nz/race-relations/annual-review-of-race-relations
    Plain as the nose on your face. Read these reports and weep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    It is all very well for white male semi-literate ignoramuses to sound off their racist prejudice, bigotry and hatred on this site, but history will judge the Hon. Chris Finayson to have achieved what many of us thought well nigh impossible – a major settlement with a badly wronged people, Ngai Tuhoe – and he and the government deserve full credit for this. I have no issue with continuing settlements as these will be conducted within a proper legal framework and I have every confidence in our Attorney General and Minister for Treaty Settlements to do, in good faith, what is morally and legally right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Apologies for the typo – Finlayson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    I agree. Particularly about Finlayson who seems to have muddled along at times. He has for done a great job as have the negotiators of Ngai Tuhoe who needed the fortitude to put much aside in order to progress this settlement. I haven’t followed it much but the name Krueger seemed prominent in speaking against the firearms being taken to the Urawera and more recently about the magic word compromise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    Tamati Kruger and Chris Finlayson have come to a sound arrangement. Ngai Tuhoe did get the rough end of the pineapple from the Crown when the military went through their tribal lands in the 18th Century hunting Te Kooti.

    The problem is most New Zealanders are ignorant of the atrocities performed on the Ngai Tuhoe people particularly their woman, I was quite shocked when I read myself what had actually happened. So you can probably understand the resentment towards the Crown in the Ureweras.

    The handover and management of the National park will not alienate white people from visiting the area, the Press create the fear factor with Maoridom which is contrary to how most Maori people see New Zealand. The Tama Iti Terrorists Raids were a media beat up driven by maori paranoia within Government and the Press.

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