slipping on water

Great news from the Waitangi Tribunal – they have issued an interim decision, that the government , “not go ahead with its proposed partial privatisation of power generating SOE until the Tribunal has at least had a chance to issue its full decision on stage one of this Inquiry”. They have been direct in their language which I take as a pointed challenge to big mouth key. 

For instance in in the conclusion they state in point 59 that

Scoop

In the interests of the Maori-Crown relationship, and all New Zealanders, the issues raised in this stage of the inquiry are serious ones that warrant measured consideration.

And in point 61

We therefore conclude that the Crown ought not to commence the sale of shares in any of the Mixed Ownership Model companies until we have had the opportunity to complete our report on stage one of this inquiry and the Crown has had the opportunity to give this report, and any recommendations it contains, in-depth and considered examination. (my emphasis)

Key is a bit stuck now and this will get nasty make no mistake about that – this was not planned for and the lie about what was said at the infamous meeting between the Maori Party and key will now be tested. Key will never listen to Māori, never. It is not in his interest to. So the slippery one is about to coat himself in grease and start being even more slippery and we will be watching.

sullied waters

So The Maori Party and John Key the Prime Minister had their meeting last night and the Maori Party are pleased. It is interesting to look a little closer at this.

NZH

Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples had previously indicated the meeting was called to discuss Mr Key's comments which they said undermined the Waitangi Tribunal which is currently hearing the Maori Council's bid to halt the sale of Mighty River Power until Maori rights and interests in water are defined.

However after emerging from the meeting late last night Mrs Turia said "the main issue was that this Government would treat our people in the same way the Labour Party did by legislating away their rights".

Hmmm they seem like totally different issues to me. Key's comments have morphed into something Labour did years ago - but what they did affected Tariana significantly. She continues to try and exact revenge but I'd suggest she go to New York and get into Helen if she is so hellbent on retribution.

Mrs Turia was asked whether that meant that should a court decision subsequent to the tribunal find that Maori did have proprietary type right over water, the Government would not legislate against that.

She said: "That was what they told us tonight".

'They' - not nice Mr Key, or The Prime Minister, or Johnny - no it is they. I wonder who 'they' are. The use of 'they' implies wriggle room to me but who will do the wriggling, I'm not too sure. To date I have not heard key say it or agree with Tariana's statement.

Meanwhile in a joint statement issued by Mrs Turia, Dr Sharples and Mr Key, they said that both parties had agreed that when the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Maori Council's claim was issued that, "as part of developing their respective responses, the two parties will jointly discuss the matter".

Nice, a joint statement and key is happy to put his mark to this one. I wonder why. Could it be the slamdunk statement that they will, "jointly discuss the matter" - jeepers expect the shit to fly NOT.


So what have we got really? Joint discussions and that is it. Until I hear the words out of key's mouth about not legislating against any decision I won't believe it - and if he does say it i will still be unconvinced - key will not do it - they will not let him, and he doesn't want to anyway.

Wai 262 - it's big

Well the Wai 262 report has been published and it is a wide ranging long document that unfortunately I have not been able to read yet. But I have read the fact sheets and I’m getting my head around what the report is saying. So this is just an initial reaction and I’ll continue to add thoughts and other commentary as it comes along. I don't mean to be too negative with the report as it was needed after such a long wait, but some of the language makes me feel a little uneasy - have I got it wrong and are seeing shadows? 

Waitangi Tribunal

It is time for the Crown–Māori relationship to evolve from one based on historical grievance to an ongoing partnership based on mutual advantage. This partnership must secure the place of mātauranga Māori in New Zealand law, and in government policy and practice. This partnership is what the Treaty of Waitangi envisaged. But it is also necessary for New Zealand’s future – for its prosperity and its sense of nationhood.

This term ‘historical grievance’ is a problem for me – it seeps some sort of blame and is a loaded term. Yes there is a ‘historic’ nature to the claims and relationship but the same exploitation is happening today to Māori. As it always is in the Māori world the past is there, and the future, within the now.

‘Mutual advantage’ is a nothing term  and I just don’t feel very good about the language and tenor of that whole bit.

This lack of a place for Māori culture in contemporary law and policy compounds a wider picture of social disparity, reflected for example in educational performance, employment and incomes, and the current crisis in Māori health. It also continues a national story in which the Crown, either deliberately or through neglect, has largely supported one of New Zealand’s two founding cultures at the expense of the other.

Hang on, ‘one of two founding cultures’ what the hell does that mean? I’m sorry but that is not right IMO. That is diminishing the mana of Māori. The Treaty of Waitangi was signed by rangatira and the Crown. There was no settler government or culture. Yes the kiwi culture has developed since then but the Treaty was with the Crown. There is Māori culture, the indigenous native culture of this place and then there is everyone else. All others who have come and made this place home, all those who have been born here and died here, who have loved here and cried here. All have been welcomed, all are welcome to come to this place of Māori.

Yet these concerns mask the underlying good will and respect that characterises the relationship between Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders. This good will is making the settlement of historical injustices possible. And once those injustices are resolved, it can provide a basis for the nation to move forward, for the Crown and Māori to establish a relationship based on mutual benefit, and for New Zealand to develop a new national identity based on the partnership between our founding cultures.

I’ve already talked about the ‘founding cultures’ bit. The ‘goodwill’ is an amazing term considering the whole process from start to finish is designed and managed by the Government to help achieve their aims. Is this term supposed to imply some choice in the matter? The Government offers the settlement and the Iwi says yes or no – that isn’t choice or consultation or discussion or partnership – it is the same old same old.

The Treaty of Waitangi gave the Crown the right to govern and enact laws, but that right was qualified by the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (full authority) for iwi and hapū over their ‘taonga katoa’ (all their treasured things). The courts have characterised this exchange of rights and obligations as a partnership.In this context, tino rangatiratanga means that iwi and hapū are entitled to exercise authority over their mātauranga, and to exercise authority over their relationships with taonga such as cultural works and parts of the environment that are significant to their culture and identity, so that they can fulfil their obligations as kaitiaki.

That is good and I have found while reading the documents that there are many good bits.

Ko Aotearoa Tēnei provides a framework for Treaty partnership in 21st century New Zealand. It makes recommendations for forms of partnership in many areas of Crown activity, including education, science, culture and heritage, conservation, resource management, indigenous flora and fauna, language, and patents.

Another good area but the next bit is not so good in my view.

This framework does not seek to elevate Māori cultural interests inappropriately above the interests of other New Zealanders. In a modern, democratic New Zealand, the ‘full authority’ envisaged by the Treaty will no longer be possible in every case. But the framework does seek to ensure that Māori interests are at least at the table when decisions are made – so they can be fairly and transparently balanced alongside other interests, rather than sidelined as they often are now.

I just don’t understand this language – ‘inappropriately’ WTF are they writing this with Don Brash in mind or what. I’ll goddam ‘transparently balance’ some other interests all right cos at least I’ll be at the table. I thought the Waitangi Tribunal had more grunt than this pacifying stuff – just be quiet or you’ll upset people.

The path that embraces partnership recognises and values Māori culture as one of New Zealand’s founding cultures. In so doing, it provides Maori with a positive platform from which they can address social issues and contribute to national prosperity; it moves the Crown-Māori relationship from one based on grievance and negativity to one based on mutual advantage; and it provides the basis for future in which all New Zealanders can look forward with optimism to a shared future. It is, the Tribunal says, time to perfect that partnership.

What can I say that I haven’t already said – told off I have been, I’m negative and just saturated with grievance, along with many if not most of my brothers and sisters – we just have to get off our arses and give it a go – instead of hitting the bottle, the bong or the kids – then we can have some mutual advantage and we can optimistically look forward to shared future – yay

As usual the Waitangi Tribunal can only recommend and the Government will decide what, if any, to accept and put into practice.

This is just the introduction because the other fact sheets are intriguing too – what do they mean when the say Māori don’t own indigenous fauna and flora? What do they mean by ‘own’? Lots of questions but lest it seem that I am completely down on this report – I’m not, I am pleased it has been released and it covers so many important areas – I thank the authors and researchers and I only wish that it could have been sped up because the time taken has been a disgrace.

Good response from these politicians

NZH

But Maori Party MP Rahui Katene, daughter of one of the original claimants John Hippolite, said the report had been watered down and politicised. "The claim is about tino rangatiratanga or Maori control of things Maori," she said. "The report goes nowhere near dealing with that." The tribunal identified only one breach of the Treaty of Waitangi - the Tohunga Suppression Act, 1907, which banned rongoa (traditional healing). The act was repealed in 1962. But Katene was scathing: "To say there is only one breach is really ignoring the reality of what happened to each of those claimant iwi, and iwi all around New Zealand."

Lawyer Annette Sykes, counsel for one claimant group, said her claimants had asked Mana Party leader Hone Harawira about taking their concerns to Parliament.

  Good stuff also from Joshua and Simon

petroleum report - crown-clowns won't like it

Now I think my views on exploration and exploitation of minerals, oil, gas and coal are well known on this blog but to allay fears - I would not allow ANY more mining at all if I had my way - NONE.

The Waitangi Tribunal has just released a pre-report on the management of the petroleum resource. I am not going to go into the rights and wrongs of my first statement above but rather focus on the report itself.

Why were the claims instigated?

The claims were brought by Ngāruahine of Taranaki and Ngāti Kahungūnu of Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa. In essence, these tribes claim that the regime for the management of petroleum, as governed by the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), is in breach of Treaty principles. In their view, three fundamental problems underlie the regime:

• the substance of the law is biased against Māori interests and culture, in favour of conflicting interests;

• the processes established to apply the law fail to ensure that there is effective participation by Māori to safeguard their interests and actually deter, and sometimes deny, Māori involvement; and

• Māori communities do not have the capacity to overcome the obstacles to their effective participation in the system because there are no reliable and sufficient sources of assistance available to them.

and the Waitangi Tribunal says

In sum, we find that there are systemic flaws in the operation of the current regime for managing the petroleum resource. They arise from the combined effect of the following features:

• the limited capacity of ‘iwi authorities’ (tribal government) to take the role envisaged for them in the regime, and the Crown’s failure to provide adequate or appropriate assistance, despite acknowledging the problem;

• the Crown’s failure, despite its Treaty responsibility, to protect Māori interests, to provide local authorities with clear policy guidance and to require them to adopt processes that ensure appropriate Māori involvement in key decisions; and

• the low level of engagement with te ao Māori and Māori perspectives that is exhibited by central and local government decision-makers.

The result, we consider, is that decision-makers tend to minimise Māori interests, and elevate other interests, in their decisions about the petroleum resource. Consequently, neither the regime nor its outcomes are consistent with Treaty principles. The prejudice is that Māori cannot protect their lands, waters, and other tāonga, nor exercise their kaitiakitanga, in the manner or to the degree that they are entitled under the Treaty, and that the law envisages.

... Also, we think that the Crown Minerals Act should be amended to provide greater protection to Māori land, enabling Māori landowners to refuse access where that is their wish. We do not accept that the small, surviving Māori land base should have less protection in respect of petroleum than it is accorded in respect of other Crown minerals. To ensure that decisions are made by the fullest possible collective of owners, permit holders should be required to seek access permission from a meeting of assembled owners, as provided for under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The crown's failure this and the crown failure that. We know this but it is good to have it summarised after due consideration - they cannot hide from this type of report - it skewers them against the wall. But of course they will hide and run - they can't help themselves. Key will say "petroleum is not on the table and never will be", brownlee will just blah blah in his useless way. But there are groups of people who will not get pushed off the path and they will continue to poke this report in their eye and in their spokes.