Sep 12, 2012

Why I'm not besotted with the Tuhoe settlement


We’ve seen some big claims over the past few days. Words like “elegant” and "monumental” have been thrown around to describe Tuhoe’s settlement with the Crown. Significant, yes, practical, yes, but I think the deal falls short of elegance and monumentality.

The deal includes a cash settlement worth $170m; this figure includes the $62m the tribe received from the Treelords deal. Adjusted for inflation $170m in 1996 dollars would buy roughly $221m today. In other words, Tuhoe have received a smaller cash settlement than Tainui and Ngai Tahu despite suffering comparable grievances. You can argue otherwise, but I don’t buy it. You can also argue Tainui and Ngai Tahu are larger, but I don’t buy that argument either. The main factor in determining the price of any settlement should be the degree or degrees of grievance.

The settlement also includes ‘mana motuhake’, or a watered down version of mana motuhake. Tuhoe will be given control of social services in their rohe, but other government responsibilities will remain with the Crown. In effect, mana motuhake is another way of saying Whanau Ora, or the devolution of social services.

Having said that, both sides acknowledge that mana motuhake might, or in Tuhoe’s view will, open possibilities to develop full autonomy and this, I think, is thoroughly appropriate. Tuhoe have always maintained that they are an independent nation. In 1896 Parliament acknowledged, or partially acknowledged, Tuhoe independence with the passage of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act. The Act provided for Tuhoe self-governance.

The third significant aspect of the settlement is Te Urewera. The government has opted for their favourite solution to Maori ownership problems – claiming no one owns it. What is now Te Urewera National Park will be vested in a new legal identity and managed by an equal number of Tuhoe representatives and Crown representatives. Positively, and in accordance with Tikanga Maori, decisions will have to be reached by consensus meaning both sides will have the power to veto.

Unfortunately, this is where Tuhoe have been forced to compromise most significantly. Full ownership has always been a bottom line. Full ownership would mean the full restoration of Tuhoe’s mana over their tribal lands. After all, Tuhoe is Te Urewera and Te Urewera is Tuhoe.

Taken as a whole, the deal is less than what many hoped for and less than I expected. The cash aspect falls short, mana motuhake appears to be another name for Whanau Ora and the “no one owns it” approach to the Ureweras does not properly acknowledge Tuhoe’s mana.

None of this detracts from the outstanding work of Tuhoe, especially Tamati Kruger who Yvonne Tahana rightly praises. Tim Selwyn points out that:

All the chips and all the cards in this game are held by the NZ government and they can deal out however many they want to whoever they want and follow whatever rules they themselves make up, so when they say "negotiation" that's not really as wholesome as it would first appear. And when the NZ government says they drove a hard bargain - as Helen Clark used to remind people - all they are saying is that from their position of overwhelming power they have screwed the Iwi over.

Viewed in this light, the deal Tuhoe have managed to drive is arguably a good one.

In the end it’s up for Tuhoe to decide whether or not this is a good bargain. I whakapapa to Tuhoe and I think the deal should and could have been better, but from what I’ve seen most Tuhoe are pleased with the deal and are optimistic. This is a new chapter for Tuhoe and many believe the first step towards their autonomy and the full restoration of their mana. Tamati Kruger is eyeing a 40 year timetable for autonomy, I’m eyeing a shorter timetable.

19 comments:

  1. Autonomy won't happen, or rather it can't be allowed to happen. First of all, it won't happen because you'll get a white nationalist backlash that will shatter the elite consensus around treaty settlements. Secondly, it can't be allowed to happen because the planet is littered with failed micro-states that have proved to be economic basket cases and have degenerated into lawlessness and corruption.

    Now, I think the elite consensus will attempt to try and continue to taxpayer fund a Tuhoe micro-state which won't pay taxes, refuse to obey NZ law, erect border checkpoints and have a bunch of dorks like Iti and his mates who will generally take endless delight in humiliating the New Zealand state and its citizens in a myriad of ways from the petty to the near or actually lethal. But the general Pakeha population won't stand for it for long.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Sanc's comment is half right -- overreach would be destructive, and substantive autonomy, functional independence from the state, or anything approaching real-world nationhood is beyond what "white nationalists" (in which I assume Sanc includes himself, given the second par) would tolerate.

    But there remains plenty of scope for this deal to extend -- gradually and by mutual consent -- the boundaries of what's possible and practical without destroying our existing constitutional sanity, and that's hugely positive.

    L

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Any extension must be by mutual consent. Taking the reaction, or lack of, to the mana motuhake aspect of the settlement seems to suggest, to me at least, that there is room to extend the concept without provoking a Pakeha/populist backlash. Because, in practise, mana motuhake will merely mean the devolution of service delivery - it's all very innocuous. We only begin in backlash territory when we talk of separate law enforcement, defence, tax systems and so on.

      Delete
  3. "...in practise, mana motuhake will merely mean the devolution of service delivery - it's all very innocuous..."

    Except when you are talking about taxpayer dollars. The central reason Whanau Ora will never succeed is simple. First, opposition politicians will constantly parade as a string of scandals every inappropriate cent spent by a Maori service delivery provider. Secondly, I am opposed to my tax dollars being spent by unaccountable private providers as a matter of principle. I don't care if it is Paula Bennett "Wisconsinising" welfare or Whanau Ora. Public money should only be spent by democratically accountable public organisations. This is a widespread feeling amongst all New Zealanders who are old-fashioned enough to believe in public accountability of public money. I would contend that the lack of reaction to the mana motuhake aspect of the settlement is because the elite political consensus has an general ambient self-censorship on the subject. I am no Chris Trotter, but I have no doubt that there is significant potential for a powerful and militant nationalist backlash once that elite consensus is broken - which is not a matter of if, but when.

    Lew - nice try at pinning a racist epithet on me, but I am not a "white" nationalist. I am a New Zealand nationalist, and a quarter Maori (Tuhoe as it happens) to boot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sanctuary, as I say, i agree with some of that analysis. But I do withdraw the remark about you being a white nationalist. And I apologise.

      L

      Delete
  4. The providers are accountable though - they're accountable through MSD and TPK. MSD and TPK are accountable through the relevant Minister, the relevant Minister is accountable to the public.

    I see the potential for a backlash, but I cannot see the current situation as being conducive to a backlash nor can I see the extension of the situation as leading to a backlash. A successful claim to wind and water, yes, but mana motuhake for Tuhoe, no. I don't think the breaking point will come through a treaty settlement, I think the breaking point will come where Maori threaten Pakeha economic dominance. Like, as a contemporary example, a claim to wind, water and solar energy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the settlement works out to about $100 per acre of stolen land, and of course, they don't get the land back. There's nothing about compensation for the murders,rapes, scorched earth policies, imprisonment, etc and back rent

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. $840 million was just signed off for a new prison in Wiri South Auckland to be managed by serial human rights abusers Serco, kinda puts the peanuts they throw at 'settling' treaty claims into perspective.

      Delete
  6. Such is the nature of treaty settlments though. Iwi have to take what they can get because there's not a great amount of leverage for iwi (so long as the Treaty isn't law). The settlements are always a pittance, but there is some room now for iwi to develop their assets and grow a firm platform for service-provision (if they so choose. This will take decades, and all the while you'll be called aristocratic, or opportunistic by other iwi and the pakeha public alike.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Does this spark the relativity clause?

    ReplyDelete
  8. perhaps for tuhoe its not about money, in my view having co management is a compromise but on terms tuhoe has brokered with review.
    this analysis is limited and I find it wanting..and I would ask Morgan do you have any dealings within your hapu and iwi at all? have you put your hands to the mahi for your people?analysis on limited information and knowledge is merely making assumptions on what you think from your perspective not from fact. a more in depth analysis based on internal hapu and iwi knowledge would have been welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, mostly fair comments.

      Now, like the majority of young Tuhoe, I'm disconnected from my hapu and that is through no fault of my own. For the sake of clarity, I may be disconnected from my Tuhoe hapu but I'm not disconnected from Ngati Awa hapu. I don't take well to you questioning my contribution to my iwi and hapu too.

      I analyse issues with the information I have and that's what I've done here. It's open to you to find that analysis wanting, but I don't detract from my conclusions. I cannot see how the deal restores the mana of Tuhoe nor can I see how it is fair in the context of Tuhoe history and in the context of other settlements. But, like I said in the post, it's up to Tuhoe to decide whether or not this is a good deal.

      Delete
  9. then as uri of tuhoe take the responsibility to know the internal workings of all hapu and iwi of tuhoe to gain clearer analysis. what you deem to be unfair or fair in monetary terms is neither here nor there, there are elements in your analysis that are missing. one may say having your tupuna taonga back in your hands is worth more than the value you broker with the crown. and we all have a responsibility to engage with our own people first over such issues and if not connected then we reconnect and put our hands to the mahi. we owe our people and our tupuna at least that much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the thing, Tuhoe don't have their taonga back. Te Urewera will be owned by no one both in law and practice. I accept that we all have a responsibility to our people. But my right to offer an opinion is not tempered by that responsibility. I am offering my own analysis and if read properly that analysis does not undermine the settlement or the efforts to reach the settlement. The post is to express my disappointment and offer an alternative view. What would you have me do? Join the negotiation team at 21 years old? Look, I accept the onus to get involved, but in my position that's far easier said than done.

      Delete
    2. Nothing is ever as it seems Morgan and we need to be careful that we don't tar other Iwi with the same brush and if you understand the inner dynamics of Ngai Tuhoe Hapu only then will you know this. This analysis in my view is wanting as Tracey lee has mentioned previously. Tribal Scholarship and thinking which has played a pivotal role in these negotiations which by far surpasses any Pakeha analysis which is where your korero is left wanting.

      Delete
    3. That's a fair call and I accept that. I stand by my analysis though - at least until someone produces the proper analysis.

      Delete
    4. You will find the proper analysis within the Hapu of Ngai Tuhoe Morgan, of which a good number of years is required by putting our hands to the mahi, unfortunately many Maori have never experienced that luxury and part of the journey for our people is to find that pathway home. I appreciate much of your analysis which I find on point for the most part, but Tribal scholarship as Ive mentioned previously is something not very many of us know and understand and I know I dont have to explain to you why that is.

      Delete
  10. Your ok morgan. I have had the same thoughts ... although I accept the settlement and have the greatest respect for tamati. Personally, I would of preferred pakeha to take an advisory roll in te urewera. And even, perhaps naively thought there might be integrity and mana in being the LAST to settle.!!

    ReplyDelete

Rules:

1. Anonymous comments will be rejected. Please use your real name or a pseudonym/moniker/etc...
2. No personal abuse. Defamatory comments will be rejected.
3. I'll reject any comment that isn't in good taste.