I’m aware the tribunal thinks there are rights. That doesn’t make it so.

One of things the Nats haven’t done is remove the execrable phrase from legislation “in accordance with the principles of the Treaty..” The MP of course prevents this from happening. Another wonderful gift from MMP.

sorry my link was invalid
http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/principles.asp

Where does Ti Tiriti say that they retain usage of water?

In Article 2.
Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka
wakaae ki nga Rangatira, ki nga Hapu, ki nga
tangata katoa o Nu Tirani, te tino Rangatiratanga
o o ratou wenu o ratou kainga, me o ratou taonga

From the 1914 translation into English from Ti Tiriti:
Here’s the Queen of England arranges and
confirms to the chiefs, to all
the men of New Zealand the entire chieftainship
of their lands, their villages, and all their property.

(Except for the land they they subsequently choose to sell, obviously.)

source: http://archive.org/stream/treatyofwaitangi00buicrich#page/102/mode/2up

…or was it stated elsewhere?

If that statement provides a reason to say some are furious with Ngai Tahu, I’d like to know why. It simply means Ngai Tahu like Tuwharetoa and probably Tuhoe are charting their own course to exercise a ‘full range of rights and and interests in water as guaranteed by TOW.” Where’s the story? Morgan and the King already know that their war cry fell on deaf and smarter ears.

Here is the tribunals THE PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI
http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/doclibrary/public/Appendix(99).pdf

The Principles of the Treaty app.1.7

In 1994, a case was brought in the Court of Appeal by certain Maori against the transfer of
property rights in the Rangataiki River and the Wheao River to the Bay of Plenty Electric
Power Board and the Rotorua Electricity Authority, pending the resolution of a claim to the
rivers lodged by Maori with the Waitangi Tribunal. While the appeal was unsuccessful, it
did address the question of the limits to aboriginal title. In an earlier High Court decision
on the same case, the judge had stated that:
The Treaty of Waitangi 1840 guaranteed to Maori, subject to British kawanatanga or
government, their tino rangatiratanga and their taonga. In doing so the Treaty must have
intended effectively to preserve for Maori their customary title. However liberally Maori
customary title and treaty rights might be construed, they were never conceived as including
the right to generate electricity by harnessing water power.
33
The High Court had also observed that:
It is as well to underline that in recent years the Courts in various jurisdictions have
increasingly recognised the justiciability of the claims of indigenous people either by developing the principle of fiduciary duty linked with aboriginal title . . . or in New Zealand decisions
in which it has been seen, not only that the Treaty of Waitangi has been acquiring some
permeating influence in New Zealand law, but also that treaty rights and Maori customary
rights tend to be partly the same in content.
34
In hearing the appeal, Justice Cooke endorsed the High Court’s ruling on the matter and
also dismissed the appeal, stating that:

The essence of what has been said above is that neither under the common law doctrine of
aboriginal title, nor under the Treaty of Waitangi, nor under any New Zealand statute have
Maori . . . had preserved or assured to them any right to generate electricity by the use of water
power.
35

Easy.

Zero.

Te Tiriti doesn’t grant water rights. If you think it does, show us where it says that, in either the Maori or the English version.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/233198/iwi-get-cash-top

Ok, so of the forecast fiscal impact outlined below how much will be spent in recognising the “full range of rights and interests in water as guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi”?

The estimated fiscal impact of the partial share sales is:

a $6.1 billion reduction in net debt. Proceeds will reduce the Crown’s borrowing requirement. Forgone dividends increase net debt but are offset by estimated finance cost savings

a $325 million reduction in the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL). Profits attributable to minority shareholders (forgone profits) reduce the surplus. This is offset somewhat by a reduction in finance costs resulting from the reduced net debt, and

a $475 million increase in net worth attributable to the Crown over the forecast horizon. Gains on disposal are forecast, reflecting an expectation that sale prices will be greater than the proportion of the companies’ carrying value divested by the Government.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2012/fsr/06.htm

But until the Tribunal clearly articulates why one group should have “special” rights over the natural elements which belong not to Maori but to all of humanity, no property right should be taken as read.

Yet it has been taken as read. Even Key talks about their “rights.”

It’s a done deal. The taxpayer loses again. And notice our alert 4th Estate Watchdog once again immediately jumped into bed with the “victims” and from the get go talked about “rights” as if of course, they always existed since forever, of course they did. But hey that’s OK, we’ll just pay for it out of the endless funds available to us from the NZ taxpayers. They won’t mind, this is “justice.” Of course it is.

Maori Council – irrelevant and archaic.

Its nothing about maori and as long as its clung to it will remain – in its present incarnation – a terribly faulted thing.
It will remain a cause of conflict and and argument as long as its given any credence at all.

There is a reason the Treaty was signed by Iwi and Hapu, its because Maori were never unified under any one structure,

To say that the Maori Council ( a body created by what many would call a Pakeha parliament) represents and has a mandate to advocate for the rights and interests of all Maori is totally fallacy,