Today's editorial in the Herald attacks the government's new policy of a deadline for Treaty claims, calling it "reckless" and pointing out that it may simply perpetuate the problem:
Disagreements dealt with under duress are often settled unsatisfactorily. One side can be left with grievances and a wish to revisit the issue so summarily resolved. For this reason, imposing a deadline on Treaty of Waitangi settlements is likely to be an unprofitable and ultimately self-defeating exercise. The shorter the period before that cut-off date is reached, the greater is the potential for future trial and tribulation.
The biggest problem with the Treaty process is not making settlements - as its critics constantly like to point out, we've done that before. It is making the settlements stick. Maori are being offered at most one to two percent of what was taken from them, and there are no guarantees that in twenty or thirty or fifty years time, a new generation of Maori leaders won't step up and demand the rest, saying that there was no way they would have accepted such a small fraction of their ancestral land. If we want to stop this from happening, we need to make sure that we deal with the utmost good faith and goodwill, not use government power to force one-sided deals on the weaker party by establishing a clock and then threatening to run it out.
7 comments:
you're right about the need to make sure the settlements are fair and properly symbolic, but my experience is that they are being conducted properly.
more often than not the thing that really impacts the claimants is the cultural redress that accompanies the settlements, and which is very rarely spoken of. that's the symbolic factor you're talking about.
fifteen years to get all these things done is a very, very long time, considering that the vast bulk of the work has already been done. really, and as you seem to obliquely indicate, the money isn't really the issue, it's the act of settling.
it's the shorter deadline that is the issue, the one for lodging claims. there's a bit of procrastinating going on in some of the cliamant regions that needs to be given a hurry-along. then, the negotiations, the really important bit can take as long as they like.
after all, the entire Tainui negotiation, a HUGE task, only took six years from the beginning of actual negotiation to conclusion. many of the smaller negotations shouldn't take take anywhere near as long.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/05/2005 10:33:00 AM
Che: I think its good for Labour to say "we want to settle this" and to give people the hurry-along with lodging and mandating claims. But an actual deadline which raises the spectre of claimants missing out if they fail to meet it - of injustice being perpetuated for purely administrative reasons - is not the way to do this. It undermines the goodwill on which this whole process rests.
And no, it's not just about money. The government has a list of how much they think each claim is worth, and they could start unilaterally dishing out money and pro-forma apologies tomorrow if they wanted. But this ignores the very real part that telling the history of how the claimants were wronged plays in the process - and its the latter which is ultimately going to make settlements stick.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/05/2005 10:57:00 AM
i/s, i think maybe we're speaking past one another. we both agree that the important thing is to see the process thru fairly and equitably, with the proper sense of decorum in regard to the grievances themselves.
and the place for that is in the negotiations process. i'm suspicious that you think the negotiations are all about the cash? it is the negotations that establish how much of the story is told, if that process hasn't already occured in the waitangi tribunal.
as i said in Politique today, i can't really imagine Labour being extreme about the deadline for lodgement, it's probably more of a guideline than anything.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/05/2005 11:22:00 AM
Che: I should add that I think Labour's timetable roughly matches the reality of how long things will take, and that I think they will do things properly; it just leaves a sour taste. And the real worry is what other parties will do when they eventually gain power...
Sock Thief: sure, but justice must be paramount. Sacrifice that, and we're back to square one.
The thing that National and ACT don't seem to understand is that Maori can wait. They've waited 150 years already; if a government passes a law saying "no more claims, we don't care", they'll just wait some more. And then, in twenty or thirty years time, we'll be having the same conversation all over again - but with a few extra decades of bad blood to poison the relationship.
We are only going to settle this finally through goodwill - and we're on the verge of doing it. I really, really, don't want to see it fucked up.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/05/2005 11:32:00 AM
Che: Yes - in more ways than one. I guess my worry is that someone may not get the chance to have their story told if a deadline is enforced. Not to mention the effect of being seen to follow National's "next Tuesday" policy (even in weaker form) will have on Maori goodwill.
If the government wants this to work, then it needs to do more than set a deadline; it needs to go to claimants and ask "how can we help you meet it?" And it needs to make sure the Waitangi Tribunal and the OTS are sufficiently resourced to keep up their end of things. They've made some vague noises about this today, and I'm just waiting for the press releases from National claiming that they're "giving too much to Maori" by taking a basic interest in justice...
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/05/2005 11:55:00 AM
the more interesting thing is the way in which labour has taken control of this issue, and is making the right seem very shrill and 'stingy' in its approach.
being the incumbent has it's advantages, especially where you can pull the rug out from under your opponents be coopting their policies... the oldest trick in the book.
people near government are telling me that there is a significant groundswell among maori in favour of getting rid of the grubby lawyers, getting this all settled, and getting on with the business of participating in the economy.
if this greivance albatross is properly handled, and other obstacles preventing maori from effectively participating in the general economy as maori can be addressed, then the greivance issue may well never raise it's head again.
after all, money has no real colour or creed.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/05/2005 12:34:00 PM
It is always possible ot convince peopel they got a raw deal if you say it loud enough - peopel are very sympathetic to that sort of argument afterall various groups believed / believe other races are taking their jobs controling hteir governments and commiting other crimes against them. you can pay off one group to make them feel better if you want and it may work, as long as you can do it largely under the noses of everyone else, but it has very little to do with actual "justice" as far as that word has any meaning at a racial level more to do with hte relitive level of excitements within those that identify as each race.
Posted by Genius : 8/05/2005 08:41:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).