The Tribunal’s tasks are set out in legislation. It is to “make recommendations on claims from Maori relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty.” In 1985 it was given the power to inquire into historical grievances dating back as far as 1840. This extension to its work required more resources and the Tribunal’s membership was increased. The Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court chairs the body. Up to 20 members of the Tribunal, broken up into smaller groups, were to hear cases. Staff assistance to members stepped up to assist with the historical claims.
What happened is that a large grievance industry developed, numbering by the decade that I spent on the body, as many as 500-600 people, most on the public payroll. They had lax supervision and settled in for a career of grievance. No one was rushing to conclude cases. I remember asking in 1995 how long it was anticipated to take to conclude the hundreds of claims. Another ten years. Five years later, it was still another ten years. Helen Clark’s government in 2008 decided to put an end to new historical claims being filed. But neither her ministry nor John Key’s took steps to reduce the size of the Tribunal. Poor supervision by ministers who feared that any cutbacks to Tribunal numbers would bring complaints, meant that members were looking for work to justify their jobs. More and more Maori radicals were appointed to the body which was soon puffing itself up to an importance that it was never intended to have. It was never meant to be more than a “quasi-judicial” body that made recommendations to government, but under several chairs, the Tribunal widened its own brief, acting as if it were some kind of court.
In 2014 the Waitangi Tribunal produced a huge wordy report that took little notice of the academically respectable histories already in existence. At vast expense, it tried to re-imagine the very Treaty that it was meant to be upholding. Re-inventing history is becoming fashionable world-wide these days. In the US, Russia and North Korea to name a few, stories, some totally opposite to provable facts, spill out from special pleaders. Despite the Treaty of Waitangi in history books and legislation specifying that in Article One the chiefs at Waitangi ceded sovereignty “absolutely and for ever” over their land to the Queen of England, the Tribunal came up with the conclusion that sovereignty wasn’t ceded at all. Maori, therefore, were still in charge. The constitutional mess such a finding anticipated wasn’t recognized at the time of this report. In effect history was being re-written by Maori radicals on the state payroll in an attempt to justify Maori co-governance. What it all amounted to was that under-employed Tribunal members, many with slender historical knowledge, were hoping to devise future careers for themselves and their mates.
This was the point where many of the Tribunal members should have been put out to grass. It was never the Tribunal’s job to re-write New Zealand’s history. But, the significance of this question of sovereignty wasn’t highlighted in the media at the time, and neither John Key’s nor Jacinda Ardern’s ministers bothered much about the issue. In the current economic climate, however, more attention is being paid to wastage of taxpayers’ money. Not so much, unfortunately, as to lead ministers to prune the Tribunal of its grossly excessive members and staff. Instead, with his recent appointments, Tama Potaka has cleared several radicals from the body, replacing them with new members, several with notable experience in government and business.
The squeals from Ngarewa-Packer and others are a pathetic attempt to maintain jobs for radical friends in make-believe historical writing. With luck, the current chair of the Tribunal, Caren Fox, will find her wings clipped, and the body will be returned to the narrower range of activities specified in legislation. If the new members perform as they should, they’ll tell the minister that at least half the Tribunal and staff – maybe the whole shooting box – has outlived its usefulness and should be closed down.
What happened is that a large grievance industry developed, numbering by the decade that I spent on the body, as many as 500-600 people, most on the public payroll. They had lax supervision and settled in for a career of grievance. No one was rushing to conclude cases. I remember asking in 1995 how long it was anticipated to take to conclude the hundreds of claims. Another ten years. Five years later, it was still another ten years. Helen Clark’s government in 2008 decided to put an end to new historical claims being filed. But neither her ministry nor John Key’s took steps to reduce the size of the Tribunal. Poor supervision by ministers who feared that any cutbacks to Tribunal numbers would bring complaints, meant that members were looking for work to justify their jobs. More and more Maori radicals were appointed to the body which was soon puffing itself up to an importance that it was never intended to have. It was never meant to be more than a “quasi-judicial” body that made recommendations to government, but under several chairs, the Tribunal widened its own brief, acting as if it were some kind of court.
In 2014 the Waitangi Tribunal produced a huge wordy report that took little notice of the academically respectable histories already in existence. At vast expense, it tried to re-imagine the very Treaty that it was meant to be upholding. Re-inventing history is becoming fashionable world-wide these days. In the US, Russia and North Korea to name a few, stories, some totally opposite to provable facts, spill out from special pleaders. Despite the Treaty of Waitangi in history books and legislation specifying that in Article One the chiefs at Waitangi ceded sovereignty “absolutely and for ever” over their land to the Queen of England, the Tribunal came up with the conclusion that sovereignty wasn’t ceded at all. Maori, therefore, were still in charge. The constitutional mess such a finding anticipated wasn’t recognized at the time of this report. In effect history was being re-written by Maori radicals on the state payroll in an attempt to justify Maori co-governance. What it all amounted to was that under-employed Tribunal members, many with slender historical knowledge, were hoping to devise future careers for themselves and their mates.
This was the point where many of the Tribunal members should have been put out to grass. It was never the Tribunal’s job to re-write New Zealand’s history. But, the significance of this question of sovereignty wasn’t highlighted in the media at the time, and neither John Key’s nor Jacinda Ardern’s ministers bothered much about the issue. In the current economic climate, however, more attention is being paid to wastage of taxpayers’ money. Not so much, unfortunately, as to lead ministers to prune the Tribunal of its grossly excessive members and staff. Instead, with his recent appointments, Tama Potaka has cleared several radicals from the body, replacing them with new members, several with notable experience in government and business.
The squeals from Ngarewa-Packer and others are a pathetic attempt to maintain jobs for radical friends in make-believe historical writing. With luck, the current chair of the Tribunal, Caren Fox, will find her wings clipped, and the body will be returned to the narrower range of activities specified in legislation. If the new members perform as they should, they’ll tell the minister that at least half the Tribunal and staff – maybe the whole shooting box – has outlived its usefulness and should be closed down.
Historian Dr Michael Bassett, a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
A Labour/G/TPM win in 2026 would simply reconfigure it as before - with no respect for mandates.
If the activists are bleating, the target has been acquired. The question is, will the appropriate and very necessary bomb be dropped.......
If only the above and its likes appeared in the msm the public would likely still patronise in numbers. And NZ might recover to again be a country worth living in.
"Has outlived its usefulness and should be closed down", and to that I would add PERIOD.
We're talking National here, Michael.
The would've-should've, could've party who specialise in scratching the surface then repairing the mark so it looks just like it used to.
Robert Arthur may think that this is a country is no longer worth living in, but, with all its faults and problems, for me it's a privilege.
Post a Comment