Kiwiblog

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?

The Herald is on the new state sector rules:

One of the important principles of any liberal democracy is the political neutrality of the state service. For our system to function smoothly it is necessary for the public and political parties of all persuasions to have rock-solid confidence that the state service will behave professionally and impartially, no matter who happens to be the government of the day.

This is so basic that it almost goes without saying, and yet the State Services Commission has felt it necessary to take steps to clarify just what public servants’ obligations are under their code of conduct. Much of its 33 pages of guidelines for interpreting the code is good, common sense, but in one respect it seems to have broken new ground.

It now seems public servants need to be careful not just about their own political and pecuniary interests but also those of close family members as well. Not surprisingly, this has caused some raised eyebrows because, in political terms at least, it seems fundamentally unfair to judge a person by someone else’s allegiances.

I agree you should not be judged by a family member’s activities.

To apply such a standard generally would lead to endless and pointless complications, especially in a small country. What, for instance, would it make of a pair of brothers one of whom was the most senior public servant in the land and the other a leader of a political party?

In most cases a public servant will take a common sense approach and tell their boss that they have a family member politically engaged if it is relevant to their job. Not because there is anything wrong with it, but to protect themselves. However there is no need to codify it.

The Press looks at Tuhoe:

Speaking at a National Party conference on Sunday, Prime Minister John Key presented an optimistic scenario of improved race relations and he praised the contribution to his Government of the Maori Party.

Yet within one day Key had outraged the Maori Party and Tuhoe by scuppering a deal to give Te Urewera National Park back to that iwi, as part of its Treaty settlement. The real mystery here is why Key suddenly lost his nerve and intervened at the very last minute after months of negotiations.

This agreement was understood to have been due to go before Cabinet on Monday. It is believed it would have vested ownership of the park in Tuhoe’s ancestors to prevent its sale. …

The Tuhoe settlement would have come after New Zealand signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted the Whanau Ora policy of the Maori Party and agreed to replace the foreshore and seabed law.

And in my minds, that is probably what led to the Tuhoe deal having a limit placed on it publicly. It would have been too far too many “wins” within a very tight timeframe.

The question for Tuhoe now is whether they still try to make a settlement with this Government, or whether they hold off and hope they can get a better deal from a future Labour Government.

The Dom Post focuses on alcohol:

Neither an increase in the tax nor lifting the drinking age would have saved James. The vodka bottle from which he was seen drinking as if its contents were water had come from his grandmother’s drinks cabinet.

However, making alcohol more expensive and reducing its availability to teenagers might just prevent another youngster from making the same mistake.

Denying those old enough to vote, to marry and to go to war the right to buy a cold beer at the end of a hot summer’s day would be a draconian measure. So would putting up the price of everyone’s favourite tipple to make alcopops less attractive. But something has to be done. The evidence is incontrovertible that New Zealand’s unhealthy attitude to alcohol is spreading downwards to those least equipped to deal with it.

Again, I think a drinking age is the best option. It would be a clear message to both adults and youth that you should not be drinking when you are at an age (and brain development) unable to handle it.

Sixteen-year-olds are in no position to assess the dangers of binge-drinking. Fifteen, 14 and 13-year-olds even less so. If the industry cannot find a way to keep alcohol out of the hands of children, society must.

The industry did not supply the bottle of vodka. But I agree alcohol should be kept out of the hands of children. Make it an offence for a young person to possess or consume alcohol except in the company of their parents. And make it an offence for anyone but a parent to supply alcohol to young persons.

The Herald reports:

Tuhoe leaders say a Crown apology for 19th century injustices would be meaningless unless tribes who fought with colonial forces also say sorry.

The Herald understands Treaty settlement negotiations have explored what shape a formal Crown apology might take, but sources say if an apology is owed then Ngati Porou, Ngati Kahungunu and Te Arawa should also show some contrition.

Of course the Crown can not compel such apologies, and this is a process to settle historical grievances against the Crown.

AUT University pro vice-chancellor Maori Pare Keiha has Rongowhakaata tribal links to Te Kooti and had ancestors who were killed by the religious and guerrilla leader.

But he was wary of the concept of an apology.

“I have no doubt whatsoever that our own people were not all kind and caring – but that’s also the history of humankind.

“I’m always very cautious to revise history because whether you call it civil wars or internecine fighting, none of us were there.

“With hindsight, history often has a habit of distorting the truth. If we carry around [that] hurt, none of us would get out of bed in the morning.”

Now I am very much a supporter of the Crown making historical settlements. I supported these under both National and Labour Governments.

But it strikes me that the arguments from the AUT pro-chancellor about why Iwi should not apologise for acts against other Iwi, can also be used to argue against apologies from the Crown.

If the Crown is going to apologise for decisions taken by Government leaders 150 years ago (which it should), then I don’t see why Iwi should not apologise for the decisions of their leaders, which disadvantaged other Iwi.

Surely settling grievances by way of apology is good for everyone?

Paddy Gower (or Patrick as he uses on air) has joined the blogosphere with Gower on Politics, which is on the Three News site.

His first blog is on the Urerewas treaty negotiations with Tuhoe.

He says:

There is no doubt Tuhoe suffered at the hands of the Crown, who unleashed a “scorched earth campaign” against them in the 1800s; their homes were destroyed, their people jailed and killed. They were run off their land and have spent the time since trying to get it back.

Now they are close; very close.

For those who are not aware of the extent of the wrongs done, Te Ara says:

The government waged a bitter campaign in Te Urewera in its search for Te Kooti and his followers. Old enemies of Tūhoe fought on the side of the government; they carried out most of the raids into Te Urewera during a prolonged and destructive search between 1869 and 1872. In a policy aimed at turning the tribe away from Te Kooti, a scorched earth campaign was unleashed against Tūhoe; people were imprisoned and killed, their cultivations and homes destroyed, and stock killed or run off. Through starvation, deprivation and atrocities at the hands of the government’s Māori forces, Tūhoe submitted to the Crown.

Gower continues:

Negotiations are incredibly delicate, involving issues like the ownership and control of the Urewera National Park and Tuhoe’s desire for self-rule. It’s a combustible combination, especially when thrown on the race relations fire that is always burning away in the background of middle New Zealand. Put simply, this is about the weight of history coming up hard against the pressure of day-to-day politics.

And the details:

Mana Motuhake means self-rule or self-government. This is Tuhoe’s dream. It had it once before and never signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Now the Government has quite predictably ruled out Tuhoe becoming a separate nation – or as Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson put it the ridiculous notion of “a Liechtenstein in the Ureweras”.

But Finlayson has also referred to “complexities” in the negotiations. Enter, Mana Motuhake. Mana Motuhake is on the table on the form of some devolution of public functions.

Plus there is more on the quantum of compensation and management of the Ureweras. Gower obviously has good sources and it will be very interesting to see, if a deal is done, the details.

Of all the historic grievances (and anyone who thinks there is no justified grievance should read history books on what happened) this is probably the most complex and difficult. If they manage this one, then the aim of settling them all by 2014 may be achievable after all.

Chris Finalyson writes in the Herald:

An important election commitment made by the National Party in 2008 was to set a goal of concluding just and durable Treaty settlements by 2014.

The reasons were simple – by healing the grievances of the past, all New Zealanders could move forward.

It was not an option to forget the past and the legitimate claims of iwi, but nor did we want to be stuck there. Settlements ultimately benefit everyone.

Getting past grievance mode is a win-win.

It should be borne in mind when National became the Government in 2008, there were about 60 settlements outstanding. Fully 20 per cent of these are claims in the Auckland region.

Dr Cullen did a good job in making progress on settlements, but alas his Labour predecessors not so much.

Sometimes iwi ask for a say in how a natural resource can be looked after. Again, Ninety Mile Beach – Te Oneroa a Tohe – provides an example.

Not only is it of spiritual significance to Maori but it also was an ancient food-gathering area, for the famed toheroa and for mullet.

Those food stocks have deteriorated over the years and the iwi wants some say on how the beach can be restored. This seems reasonable given the historical connection they have with the beach and so the Government is prepared to involve those iwi in looking at ways in which environmental damage can be repaired for the good of all beach-goers.

Sounds reasonable.

These are exciting times. The opportunity exists for concluding just and durable settlements throughout the Auckland region, something that a few years ago would have been regarded as a pipe dream.

Iwi are keen to get on with the business, the Crown is keen, and everyone agrees that public access can never be compromised.

That is why this Government is moving with such determination to resolve historical Treaty issues. Settling historical Treaty claims by 2014 means just that – settlements have to take place.

Governments cannot just talk about settling – they actually have to do the deals. The Crown and Maori are determined to work together to undo the heavy burdens of the past and move on. It is a time for optimism and positive thinking.

The 2014 target is ambitious, maybe even aspirational. But it would be a massive achievement to have all major historic treaty claims achieve final settlement during this Government’s tenure.

If you have a spare quarter hour, you may find this public lecture by Chris Finlayson on Treaty Settlements interesting. The intro etc takes around three minutes, but then gets into the substance.

Hat Tip: Tumeke

A must read article by Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finalyson in the Herald:

Treaty settlements are not about one group of people being unequal under the law. This country has one law for all – the Treaty guaranteed that. The settlements process is about recognising those instances – regrettably common – where the Crown did not treat all the people of New Zealand equally – where people in New Zealand under the Crown’s protection were stripped of land they owned, or deprived of the right to be treated fairly, despite its undertaking to stop that from happening.

And an example:

Anyone who thinks the Treaty settlement process is about securing privileges for Maori need only familiarise themselves with the recent Waitangi Tribunal report on the history of the Urewera region. It does not make pleasant reading.

It presents the detailed history of the Urewera region for the first time. The tribunal describes the Crown’s confiscation of 24,280ha of Tuhoe land on its first real contact with that tribe.

It details the attacks on the tribe in the Bay of Plenty to apprehend Te Kooti – raids that started as justified military action, but led to the intentional slaughter of civilians and prisoners, and were described by one senior military officer at the time as “extermination”.

Tame Iti may be an attention seeking idiot, but Tuhoe do have some legitimate grievances.

Within days of signing the Treaty in 1840, the Crown bought 1214ha of downtown Auckland for 281.

Within six months it resold just 36ha of that for 24,500. It is pointless to feel guilt about this. For one thing, none of us alive today was responsible for what happened then. However, those who hold the levers of power in the Crown must take action to redress these wrongs, because it was the Crown that caused these grievances.

So purchase price was 23c (converting to dollars) a hectare and sale price six months later was $681 a hectare.

We cannot give back all that was taken, and to their credit no claimants have demanded that the Crown do so. The cost of settlements is around 5 per cent of the value of what iwi lost. According to some estimates, it is much less.

There is no way of knowing what the real figure is, and it does not matter. The Treaty settlement process is as much about recognition and healing as it is about recompense.

Sir Douglas Graham often made the same point.

It’s why other parts of settlements – like restoring traditional names, or co-management of culturally significant land with the Government – may not have any monetary value. They are important to iwi and the way they relate to the country.

Yep.

Treaty settlements are good for the whole country. There has been much talk of economic stimulus recently. Treaty settlements help unlock the economic development potential which exists in the regions and in the Maori community.

This is true, and Ngai Tahu are good examples of this. However it is worth remembering what Don Brash said – the gains for Maori from lifting educational and economic achievement are a magnitude higher than any gain from Treaty settlements. The settlements are at best a catalyst.

Settlements address our past and invest in a common future. The wrongs of history are real. Failure to address genuine grievance creates a new grievance.

But by providing an end point for the injustices and reaching durable and just settlements, we can move forward as a country – together.

I’m looking forward to most of the outstandinghistorical  claims being settled in the next six years.

National also released yesterday its policies on Maori Affairs and Treaty Negotiations.

• Include Kohanga Reo in the 20 hours early childhood education subsidy funding regime.
• Expand the Te Kotahitanga professional development program.
• Provide delegated funding to enable Māori health providers to deliver a wider range of services closer to home.
• Expand Papakainga housing. This will involve working with Māori collectives and councils to remove planning restrictions on the development of housing on communal land and multiply-owned Māori land.
• Ensure Māori receive their aquaculture settlement entitlement, and reform the Resource Management Act to facilitate growth and development in the aquaculture industry.
• Move the Office of Treaty Settlements from the Ministry of Justice to another central agency such
  as the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
• Appoint independent settlement facilitators to chair negotiations, keep the process moving forward, and ensure both parties act in good faith.
• Empower the independent settlement facilitators to advise claimant groups on pre-negotiation and mandate issues so they can move forward to settlement negotiations more quickly.
• Provide sufficient support to allow the Waitangi Tribunal to sit full-time, including reviewing the remuneration and support offered to members.

There seems to be a lot there that the Maori Party would support.

I especially like the commitment to speeding up the Treaty settlements by shifting the office to DPMC, having independent facilitators and greater resourcing for the Waitangi Tribunal. Now every historic claim has been filed, it is simply a matter of how long it will take to settle them.

The deadline for filing historical (prior to 1992) Treaty of Waitangi claims is at midnight tonight.

Claimants have had over 20 years to file their claims, so the deadline is far from hasty as the Maori Party claim. Indeed as Chris Finlayson says, there needs to be an end to litigation at some stage.

The Waitangi Tribunal has been publicising the deadline and has generated several hundred claims. I honestly doubt a single genuine claim has not managed to be filed.

The good thing about today, is that from tomorrow on the number of unresolved historical grievance claims can only start reducing. God knows how long it will take to consider and hopefully resolve them all, but we will have a known number of claims for the Tribunal and Government to work through.

Dr Cullen has done a sterling job in advancing Treaty settlements since he took over from Mark Burton. If National win the election, they should aim to match Dr Cullen’s pace. Luckily they have considerable resources to call on:

• Chris Finlayson, who speny many years as Ngai Tahu’s lawyer and is very knowledgable in this area
• Tim Groser, one of NZ’s top negotiators (and the settlements are very much a negotiation)
• Georgina te Heuheu, a former member of the Waitangi Tribunal

Of course premature to speculate on what portfolios, MPs may get, but just wanting to show that the work of resolving historical grievances should continue, and settling such grievances in fair, full and final settlements is a win-win.

The only way Labour can win is a campaign of denigration against John Key, so they had a go with all guns blazing yesterday over his comments that NZ was formed peacefully.

The NZ Herald compares his comments to Michael Cullen’s and indeed Anand Satyanand and all have said much the same thing. It is indeed one of the things we should be proudest of is that NZ was formed by peaceful treaty not violent conquest.

Of course there were breaches and conflicts later on. NZ behaviour in the 1800s especially was not ideal and this is one of the reasons why five generations on we are trying to do fair settlements of those grievances.

Grant Robertson comments on the suggestion by Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa that all future Finance Ministers should also be Treaty Negotiation Ministers also.

Dr Cullen has made admirable progress, and should be congratulated for it. I suspect his job was made easier by the fact that he got to replace Mark Burton who showed the same skills at Treaty Negotiations as he did with Electoral Finance.

I would not tie the job into the Finance Minister job (even though Bill English would do a fine job) but I agree with Grant you do want Ministers who are motivated to do the job and have some mana. National has at least three people who could contribute very well to the portfolio.

Chris Finlayson is the current spokesperson and has worked in the Treaty area professionally before he entered Parliament, and has good relations with many prominent Iwi leaders. Georgina te Heuheu is a former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, and was NZ’s first female Maori lawyer. The other person whom I would advocate should be included (I think the portfolio is important enough one should have one or maybe two associate Ministers) is Tim Groser. Tim is a highly experienced negotiator in the trade field, and at the end of the day a large component of Treaty settlements is a commercial negotiation.