The Grievance Industry, Part II

Putting Things Right

There is one aspect of the "grievance industry" in New Zealand that has just cause.  In 1840 the British Crown signed a solemn league and covenant with the Maori, now known as the Treaty of Waitangi.  One of the strongest motivations behind the Treaty (on both sides) was to establish and protect Maori title to their lands (which consisted of most of the country).  The text of the Treaty reflects that common concern. The right of Maori to sell their tribal lands was, of course, recognised.

However, the concept of Maori ownership of land was a problematic notion to Maori themselves.  What constituted ownership?  Self-policed possession was becoming the primary claim to ownership.  But that was a very murky business in many cases, since Maori tribal wars, retribution and utu meant that possession was an ephemeral and fluid reality, as tribes (and sub-tribes) warred, conquered, claimed land, lost land, and reconquered and regained it.
  Moreover, the fact that land was tribally owned meant that getting consent of the owners could be a complex business.  Many claiming the rights of ownership of (and therefore to sell) land subsequently turned out to be questionable, if not bogus.  Finally, the prices paid often proved to be contentious, in hind sight.  Some lands were sold for ridiculously low prices, others for exorbitant amounts when judged by subsequent market prices.

After the very early days were  over, and there was a settled Government, the native as a rule got a fair, and sometimes and exhorbitant (sic) price for his land.  That this was so may be gauged from the fact that thirty or forty years later it was possible to buy much of this land for less than was originally paid for it.  [Henry E. R. L. Wily, South Auckland: Some Sketches of its Early Settlement and Development, With a Glance At the Conditions Under Which It Was Colonised.  (Pukekohe: Franklin Printing and Publishing Co Ltd., 1939), p.92.]

However, twenty years or so after the signing of the Treaty, the government was found siding with the growing number of settlers in their relentless appetite to own land.  Whereas the original intent of the Treaty was for the signatories, including the Crown, to commit to protection of Maori land, two and a half decades later the policy and intent of the government was to get as much land as possible sold by Maori to Pakeha.  As a part of this drive, the government expropriated large tracts of Maori land as reparations for the Maori wars.  The government also set up the Native Land Court to effect almost forced sale of Maori land to the Crown and to settlers. 

The Native Land Court was one of the key products of the 1865 Native Lands Act. It provided for the conversion of traditional communal landholdings into individual titles, making it easier to purchase Māori land. Coming little more than a year after the Waikato War, this legislation was to achieve what many believed had not been accomplished on the battlefield – acquiring the land necessary to satisfy an insatiable settler appetite. The operations of the Land Court affected Māori more than those of any other colonial institution. When old rivalries were played out in court, the ultimate beneficiaries were Pākehā. Historian Judith Binney described the Native Lands Act as an ‘act of war’.

The Court was required to name no more than ten owners, regardless of the size of a block. All other tribal members were effectively dispossessed. The newly designated owners held their lands individually, not communally as part of (or trustees for) a tribal group. They could manage it, and sell it, as individuals and for their own benefit. [New Zealand History Online]

The Crown was clearly in breach of the Treaty.  To our mind that creates just grievance and cause for restitution.  A covenant had been broken; the covenant breakers must be required to make restitution.  Thus began the process known in New Zealand as the Treaty Settlements.

Chris Finlayson,  Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, recently provided an update on the progress, as well as reminding us all of the crux of the matters involved.

. . . .  Today I will represent the Crown at Cape Reinga to sign a deed of settlement with Ngati Kuri. It will be the fourth settlement the Crown has concluded with Far North iwi who, with Ngati Kahu, are often referred to as Te Hiku.  The Te Hiku iwi began a claim in the Waitangi Tribunal over a quarter of a century ago. The tribunal reported on their claims in its thorough and comprehensive Muriwhenua Report in 1993. It detailed the loss of life and land caused by the Crown's failure to keep its promise to act in good faith towards iwi.

These sorts of claims are not ancient history. They are family histories, passed down from great-grandparents to their great-grandchildren. They are living memories of the history of the areas in which iwi still live and work.  Some people say they want an end to historical settlements. Most people agree. I do. Maori want them resolved as well. . . .

The completion of all settlements is now an achievable goal. It can happen, with the goodwill of all parties, in the next few years.  The settlements will end not because Maori and the public have tired of them, but because they are finished.  The Ngati Kuri will bring to 42 the number of settlements this Government has signed with iwi. That brings the total to 68.

National's policy since the 1990s has been to address real grievances by reaching full and final settlements with genuine claimants in a timely fashion. Are there non-genuine claims? Certainly, just as there are vexatious cases in the common law courts. They are easy to spot. We are not interested in claims about the ownership of wind, for example.

We are determined, however, to put right the thoroughly and accurately documented cases of hurt caused by the Crown's wrongful actions in the past. This is what Treaty settlements are about.  The faster we settle these claims, the sooner there is an end. The sooner we settle, the sooner iwi can see the benefits of their settlements, and the sooner all New Zealanders benefit from moving on from grievance. Justice delayed is justice denied.

And the good news is that the completion of settlements is closer than many people think.  The number of remaining settlements is fewer than 50. Many of the remaining claimants have signed agreements in principle setting out the broad parameters of their settlements, and the Crown is engaged with almost all groups.  We are well on the way to the end. And the sky has not fallen. Despite dire predictions from a small minority at the beginning of this process, the quality of life of most New Zealanders has not been affected in any way. Beaches, national parks, rivers and mountain ranges are still enjoyed by everyone in exactly the same way they were before.

What has happened is that iwi have invested in their people and their regions.  Rather than blowing the proceeds of Treaty settlements, as was again predicted by a vocal few, most have acted wisely and developed the capacity of their people.  That's another fact that may have surprised some people at the start of this process: Treaty settlements have brought iwi closer to their local communities, not further away.   The result is less division, less fear of the unknown, and more unity.

We are gratified at the progress being made.