Tainui told to get mandate

Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson has told Waikato-Tainui to get a mandate and to specify their claims after King Tuheitia followed up by Tukoroirangi Morgan indicated they would make claims reaching up to Auckland.

Can different Iwi make claims over the same area?  And why now? Waikato-Tainui settled some claims at least in 1995.

NZ Herald reports in Tainui told get mandate and spell out claims.

Mr Morgan, the spokesman for King Tuheitia, has been elaborating on a reference to Auckland claims that the king made in a speech on Friday at coronation anniversary celebrations at Turangawaewae.

King Tuheitia talked about a new era of rights and claims and of defending the stature of the Kingitanga – the Maori King movement established in the 1850s to prevent more land confiscations.

“We will start with the Kingitanga claims in Tamaki.”

He also wanted further to address “the question of sovereignty of the Kingitanga with the Government and the Crown.”

King Tuheitia talked about his struggle with health – he has diabetes – and said he wanted to “leave a legacy for the next one to continue.”

The Kingitanga seems to be striving for relevancy. How important is the King in Waikato-Tainui?

Mr Morgan told the Herald that Tainui had a claim over the Auckland area which had been filed in 1993 by Huakina on behalf of Tainui.

The first Maori King, Potatau Te Wherowhero, had lived in Mangere, and had other houses at Howick and a summer home in what is now the domain, and he had mana over the Auckland area.

Mr Morgan said the Huakina claim covered a region from the upper reaches of Waikato across to the Firth of Thames, up as far as Mahurangi, across to Piha and down to the Manukau Harbour.

Finlayson has responded and disputed some claims.

Mr Morgan said that at a meeting about five weeks ago between himself and Mr Finlayson and Housing Minister Nick Smith, Mr Finlayson had agreed they could begin to draw up terms of negotiation.

Mr Finlayson disputes that – and said he was not aware of a Huakina claim.

He also cited a letter dated August 15, 2013, to Tom Roa, interim negotiator for Waikato-Tainui, stating: “I have previously invited Waikato-Tainui to clarify the nature of any outstanding claims it considers it may have in [Auckland] and urge you to do so.

Finlayson has one message for Waikato-Tainui if it wants to begin negotiating a claim over parts of Auckland – get a mandate and specify your claims.

He said he had given Tukoroirangi Morgan the same message about five times in the past.

“He nods and then nothing happens,” Mr Finlayson told the Herald.

“Mandates don’t last forever.”

Mr Finlayson said he had also formally written to Waikato-Tainui two years ago setting out what needed to be done if it had a claim to parts of Auckland.

So the King needs to demonstrate he has a mandate amongst Waikato-Tainui.

And then show that they can make claims over territory north of the Waikato.

Leave a comment

19 Comments

  1. DaveG

     /  25th August 2015

    Maori seem to think they can claim anything that is of any value, claim more and more of the decision making power in NZ parliament yet seem to want protection or be exempt from contributing to the normal day to day cost of running the country, including the immense costs of their very own people!

    Before I see one more ridiculous claim how about some common sense and a few Govt ministers sit down with the same number oc Maori to discuss some ground rules, like the Brownmail and Treaty gravy train is over! Then how about for the next 20 years since Maori want to run the country and more independence, we will split the tax take based on cultural sectors. That means all tax from Maori is available to them to run their people less the central costs of justice (inc the huge prison costs), health an Education a portion of roads etc, and anything remaining can be spent on Maori welfare, employment, development and of course Te Reo.

    If further claims, Pakeha can then calculate the inproportionate cost of Maori welfare and justice and deduct those costs over the last 100 years from any claims. Can Maori please send the cheques to Parliment. If only It’s time to push back with a no. Go away and think of the millions on fact trillions in benefits and let’s level the playing field, which up till now is slanted in favour of Maori.

    Reply
  2. kittycatkin

     /  25th August 2015

    Yes, Tainui did have a ‘full and final settlement’ in 1995, but that was 20 years ago and inflattion means that the amount which was vast then isn’t so vast now and they want to update it.

    Of course two tribes can claim the same thing-it just means that the government (taxpayer) will pay each of them what it’s worth-if they succeed. I think that this is the old woman and vinegar bottle and will be a claim too far.It wouldn’t surprise me if, supposing the land is worth $100,000,000, (I have no idea what it’s really worth, of course), each tribe will claim $100,000,000. QED Nice work if you can get it.

    Reply
    • Narty Fartua

       /  25th August 2015

      The settlement amount was $170 million.

      So In today’s money, enough to buy at least 40 houses in Auckland 🙂

      Reply
      • DaveG

         /  25th August 2015

        You conveniently forget that at the time, the $170 mill could have provided a return of $17 Mill if just invested, so lets work this out. $170 Mill, invested at the then 10%+ cash rate, thats $17 mill per annum, deduct say $2mill (enough to administer 12-15 staff) and you have $15 Mill left to invest, now at the then $200 K average for a home 75 Houses per year…… Could have had an easy 2,000 homes by now using the rents to offset the decling interest return, and reinvesting the interest every year! Now, those 2000 houses at an average price approaching $600,000 today would be worth $1,500,000,000……. and they could have still had the $120,000,000. So, please think before you claim more, Maori’s mismanagement, and squandering of funds does not justify more holding out of hands, make it last, there is no more, and NO MORE SPECIAL handouts for any, especially Maori..

        Reply
        • Calvin de Kline

           /  25th August 2015

          Plus of course, they had to keep Tuku in undies 😦

          Reply
        • Narty Fartua

           /  25th August 2015

          No need to get your tits-in-a-tangle Dave – it was meant as s.a.r.c.a.s.m.

          LOL!

          Reply
          • kittycatkin

             /  25th August 2015

            An awful lot was squandered on things like $250,0000 cars and a huge,multi-million dollar ‘university’ which in ? years has yet to have a single student. It’s a lovely building, and has incredible views, but it’s unused and is just a monument to the vast egos of the Mahutas. I heard that some old Tainui turned up, announced that they were going to live there and moved in. I hope it’s true. Ordinary Tainui have had a very raw deal. A Tainui friend was offered a university ‘scholarship’ of $100 a year which the bigwigs seemed to think was madly generous. He told them to keep it-as an adult student, he was insulted.

            Reply
  3. Goldie

     /  25th August 2015

    I wonder if the Maori King was in his mind when he made this statement. Tuheitia has never been the full deck, and he is very ill. It is terribly sad.

    The claim is laughable. All historical claims had to have been submitted by 1 September 2008. In any case, Ngati Whatua is accepted to have mana whenua of the Tamaki area (with Hauraki tribes claiming some of the eastern areas), and Ngati Whatua has never accepted the mana of the Kingitanga.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  25th August 2015

      @Goldie

      I am pretty sure that Tuku Morgan said last night, that the Kingitangi claim for Tamaki was registered in 1993.

      Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  25th August 2015

      When God was handing out brains, the ‘king’ thought it was trains and asked for a small, slow one.

      Reply
  4. If Ngati Whatua don’t nix this then you know its a set up between them and Tainui to extract more money for the tribal elites. Basically Finlayson needs to grow a pair say Ngati Whatua have mana here and they have a settlement. Take your kingitanga and shove it…

    I have now officially had an absolute guts full with this process. Finlayson needs to finish the current round and tell Maori as a whole – no more, nada, zip, zilch …it is done.

    And my limited reading on the period around 1830-150 indicates a lot of what is Auckland was EMPTY of people as europeans arrived. Nga Puhi had massacred large numbers in the area and the residuals had done a run into Waikato territory for sanctuary….. never mind time to draw a line under this

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  25th August 2015

      Not to mention that we hear so often that ownership of land is a Pakeha concept.

      Tainui took the land, as I understand it, when they had guns and the others didn’t. Aroha is a wonderful thing.

      Reply
      • Nga Puhi took from Ngati Whatua around 1805-1810, then things got really messy as every tribe trade flax and other goodies too get as many muskets as possible…. I recommend the book “The Musket Wars” in most libraries to get a sesne of how much chaos and carnage was being wrought in NZ from around 1805 through 1840. Reading that book made it pretty clear a lot of the tribal chiefs were seeking crown protection when they sign the Treaty…..

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  26th August 2015

          No, thanks, I’ll take your word for it.

          It may be petty-minded, but I really dislike it when other people do all the work for local projects and when the building, exhibition or whatever it is opened, Tainui bigwigs turn up, welcome everyone as if they were the ones responsible when they haven’t contributed so much as a paperclip, give interminable speeches in Maori that even someone with little knowledge can tell are mind-numbingly boring (clue: Maori eyes glazing over) and take all the credit. This has happened over and over.

          Reply
  5. Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson has one message for Waikato-Tainui if it wants to begin negotiating a claim over parts of Auckland – get a mandate and specify your claims. Is the lack of experience with democratic government a real problem?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: