Dr Michael Bassett

Dr Michael Bassett

Newspaper Columns

Columns

16/12/07 Keith Holyoake
05/12/07 Roger Douglas's 70th birthday
26/11/07 Announcement
09/10/07 Election Spending
25/09/07 Glad-handing and Time-wasting
15/09/07 Reflections on Helen Clark (PRESS Mainlander)
11/09/07 Time for Road Pricing
28/08/07 Personal Attacks
14/08/07 Parity with Australian Pay
31/07/07 Political Paralysis: France and New Zealand
19/06/07 Robert Muldoon is Back
05/06/07 Polls, Damned Polls
22/05/07 The Strange Death of the New Zealand Economy
08/05/07 Reserve Bank Inquiry
24/04/07 Health Union Extremism
10/04/07 Daylight Saving
27/03/07 The Really Big Issue
13/03/07 The Anti-Police Hysteria
27/02/07 Slowing Down Justice
13/02/07 Political Soft Options
30/01/07 An End to Treaty Historical Claims
16/01/07 Learning from History
19/12/06 Problems of Opposition since 2001
13/12/06 TIM PANKHURST Dominion Post
05/12/06 Nicky Hager and the Hollow Book
21/11/06 Greeks Bearing Gifts
07/11/06 Poor Policing in Auckland
24/10/06 Careless decisions on Auckland's Waterfront
10/10/06 The PC Clobbering Machine
26/09/06 Toxic Politics
12/09/06 Auckland's Robbers' Convention (NZ Herald)
12/09/06 Labour's Political Scandals
29/08/06 Corruption and Party Funding
14/08/06 War in the Middle East
01/08/06 New Zealand's Future?
20/06/06 Our Infrastructural Needs
20/06/06 Leave
06/06/06 Diverting the Public's Attention
23/05/06 New Zealand and Australia
09/05/06 The Maori Seats
11/04/06 Dogs and Priorities
28/03/06 Parliament's Size
14/03/06 Crime and Police priorities
28/02/06 Family Planning and Poverty
14/02/06 The Cartoon Furore
31/01/06 Greater Financial Understanding
03/01/06 Encouraging Economic Literacy

An End to Treaty Historical Claims

30/01/2007

With Waitangi Day fast approaching, press stories are starting to appear criticising the government's Treaty settlement policy. Journalists peddling the assertions of Maori radicals rarely look for counter arguments. Yet the government's critics are mostly people who make their livings from continuing the grievance process: lawyers in search of briefs, or radicals with axes to grind. It's time for a realistic assessment of the grievance process. If Labour wasn't so scared of losing Maori votes they would be vigorously defending their policies which intend to close off new historical claims in 2008, and settle all outstanding historical claims by 2020. Lord knows, those dates are generous enough: the Fourth Labour government in 1985 when it gave the Waitangi Tribunal the power to examine historical claims back to 1840 envisaged all claims being settled by 2000. The new dates indicate the failure of successive governments, National and Labour, to come to grips with the administrative challenge. The Waitangi settlement process was intended to heal wounds over the confiscation of land in the 19th century, and wrongs done to Maori. Instead, lax administration has let a permanent grievance industry develop at huge expense to the taxpayer, and no benefit to ordinary Maori, most of whom are yet to see any dividends from settlements.

In 1943 a careful assessment of historical grievances was produced for Prime Minister Peter Fraser. It concluded that there were eleven areas of substantial Maori grievance. Four "full and final" settlements were made over the next four years. The Fourth Labour Government knew there were other serious grievances, but concluded that the number was not large. Twenty years later, with no cut off date for the filing of claims yet in force, they number 1300. Many are speculative in nature. In several cases that I came across as a Tribunal member, the Tribunal was ready to deliberate when more claims suddenly appeared. In most cases they were from people who had not been members of the main hapu or iwi, but had heard family stories about some ancestral connection with the land under discussion. The new claimants wanted to stop proceedings while the State paid for research to establish their rights. As soon as the cheque book opened there was a lawyer ready to plead the case, and someone ready to research the claim. "Research" is a kind word; often the papers presented were of low quality, while meantime the settlement process with the principal parties was delayed, sometimes for several years. All the incentives pointed in the direction of continuing grievances, not settling them. Tribunal members asked to see ministers to point out faults in the system; nothing happened. The process dragged on. More lawyers became involved. Costs blew out, while the original claimants sat by gnashing their teeth.

Credulous journalists have lent themselves to special pleaders. One small family endeavoured to upstage part of the Kaipara hearings that I sat on. We investigated and decided the group had nothing more than a minor family disagreement with the main claimants. That didn't deter them. Some months later, the leading complainer now calling his group an "iwi", was all over the front page of the Herald asserting he had equal rights with Ngati Whatua, the tribe that has always been recognised as the tangata whenua in the Auckland isthmus. No counter argument was reported.

Funding claims of this kind with taxpayers' money is bad. First it can delay settlement for those with legitimate grievances. Secondly, no matter the rules, there is the potential for full and final agreements, once made, to be unravelled after years of painstaking work has gone into a settlement. Lawyers, after all, can be hired to argue anything for a price. They get their state-paid money whether a claim has merit or not. So-called researchers are the same. Taxpayers get ripped off. Maori suffer because justice delayed is justice denied.

The intention behind the 1985 process was to heal wounds, not to rub salt into them. The latter has been happening for too long. All political parties should join forces and acknowledge that virtually all the historical claims are now in, and the grievance industry should wind down. Existing claims must be settled as quickly as possible. Stopping fresh historical claims means that full and final settlements already made have a chance of working longer term. The Waitangi process was never intended as a permanent career for lawyers and under-employed "researchers". It was to assist ordinary Maori whose interests, sadly, are too often over-looked.