But a response last month by the Office of Crown Maori Relations, to an OIA question on how much money has the government paid in total claims since 1975, including the most recent settlements, looks like misinformation.
The OIA request was not put in by me.
A regional director for this government entity put the total financial redress figure at $2.739-billion to February 1, 2025.
Yet figures extracted from treaty settlement summaries, which are also published by the Office of Crown Maori Relations, was $4.6-billion to March 31 last year.
The OIA response helpfully included both a letter and a list.
What was different? To make a start, I compared the entries for Waikato Tainui and Ngai Tahu, which had both settled in the 1990s, to see whether top-up payments had been included.
Both settlements included top-up clauses because they settled early. A slightly higher percentage of 17 percent went to Waikato-Tainui because they settled three years before Ngai Tahu, which gets a 16.1 percent cut.
The January list had not included the top-ups received by both tribes as part of their treaty settlement.
The January OIA response had a single entry of $170-million for Waikato-Tainui dated May 22, 1995, and a single entry of $170-milliion for Nga Tahu of $170-million dated October 1, 1998.
However, details from settlement summaries show that Waikato-Tainui had a top-up of $70-million in 2012, a further $190-million in 2017, and $101.5-million in 2018.
Ngai Tahu had a top-up of $68.5-million in 2012, a further $180-million in 2017, and $96.5-million in 2018.
In addition, both tribes complained that the top-ups were not enough and got further “negotiated payments”, being $35-million for Waikato-Tainui and $55-million for Ngai Tahu.
To spell it out, the Waikato-Tainui settlement including top-ups and negotiated extras totalled $566.5-million, not $170-million.
And, the Ngai Tahu settlement including top-ups and negotiated extras totalled $570-million, not $170-million.
There were other omissions in the January list of settlements.
The January list omitted the 1992 commercial fisheries settlements of around $170-million. Why?
Some figures were wound back. The Central North Island Forestry settlement on June 25, 2008, was recorded as $7.4-million instead of $372.6-million.
One settlement was declared as not eventuating.
That was the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, which was reported at the time as amounting to $212-million, was recorded as not enacted and subsequently revised.
However, the Act is still on the books and may be found here Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 No 24 (as at 24 December 2024), Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation.
The first top-ups for Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu were announced in November of 2012, when the treaty settlement redress total went over $1-billion in 1992 dollars.
Why $1-billion? Because former Prime Minister Jim Bolger floated the concept of a $1-billion “fiscal envelope” to soothe widespread opposition by saying the massive payouts would not exceed $1-billion.
Claimants vehemently objected, Bolger caved in, and relativity clauses enabling the ongoing percentages cuts were included.
It looks like the government remains sensitive about the top-ups.
Politicians of all colours repeat the mantra that they support treaty settlements and won't break with the orthodoxy.
Criticism of treaty settlements is not allowed.
Meanwhile, the two big tribes are probably laughing all the way to the bank.
Why does a written response by the Office of Crown Maori Relations to an OIA request give a settlement figure that is nearly $2-billion less than the total figure extracted from the settlement summaries published on its website? The office needs to explain.
Here are the two lists for you to analyse. Click on images to read.
A regional director for this government entity put the total financial redress figure at $2.739-billion to February 1, 2025.
Yet figures extracted from treaty settlement summaries, which are also published by the Office of Crown Maori Relations, was $4.6-billion to March 31 last year.
The OIA response helpfully included both a letter and a list.
What was different? To make a start, I compared the entries for Waikato Tainui and Ngai Tahu, which had both settled in the 1990s, to see whether top-up payments had been included.
Both settlements included top-up clauses because they settled early. A slightly higher percentage of 17 percent went to Waikato-Tainui because they settled three years before Ngai Tahu, which gets a 16.1 percent cut.
The January list had not included the top-ups received by both tribes as part of their treaty settlement.
The January OIA response had a single entry of $170-million for Waikato-Tainui dated May 22, 1995, and a single entry of $170-milliion for Nga Tahu of $170-million dated October 1, 1998.
However, details from settlement summaries show that Waikato-Tainui had a top-up of $70-million in 2012, a further $190-million in 2017, and $101.5-million in 2018.
Ngai Tahu had a top-up of $68.5-million in 2012, a further $180-million in 2017, and $96.5-million in 2018.
In addition, both tribes complained that the top-ups were not enough and got further “negotiated payments”, being $35-million for Waikato-Tainui and $55-million for Ngai Tahu.
To spell it out, the Waikato-Tainui settlement including top-ups and negotiated extras totalled $566.5-million, not $170-million.
And, the Ngai Tahu settlement including top-ups and negotiated extras totalled $570-million, not $170-million.
There were other omissions in the January list of settlements.
The January list omitted the 1992 commercial fisheries settlements of around $170-million. Why?
Some figures were wound back. The Central North Island Forestry settlement on June 25, 2008, was recorded as $7.4-million instead of $372.6-million.
One settlement was declared as not eventuating.
That was the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, which was reported at the time as amounting to $212-million, was recorded as not enacted and subsequently revised.
However, the Act is still on the books and may be found here Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 No 24 (as at 24 December 2024), Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation.
The first top-ups for Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu were announced in November of 2012, when the treaty settlement redress total went over $1-billion in 1992 dollars.
Why $1-billion? Because former Prime Minister Jim Bolger floated the concept of a $1-billion “fiscal envelope” to soothe widespread opposition by saying the massive payouts would not exceed $1-billion.
Claimants vehemently objected, Bolger caved in, and relativity clauses enabling the ongoing percentages cuts were included.
It looks like the government remains sensitive about the top-ups.
Politicians of all colours repeat the mantra that they support treaty settlements and won't break with the orthodoxy.
Criticism of treaty settlements is not allowed.
Meanwhile, the two big tribes are probably laughing all the way to the bank.
Why does a written response by the Office of Crown Maori Relations to an OIA request give a settlement figure that is nearly $2-billion less than the total figure extracted from the settlement summaries published on its website? The office needs to explain.
Here are the two lists for you to analyse. Click on images to read.
9 comments:
I wonder if Luxon will take abrak from his te reo lessons to study the above list.
Thanks for your painstaking research Mike.
It is only because people like you keep providing the voters with the truth that we will ever succeed in stopping this unsustainable madness.
However your observations also provide answers as to why the last big tribal group (Ngai Tahu) will never settle until forced to do so - the gravy train will only stop when the last remaining Iwi is given permission to settle by those who are creaming it while the rort continues apace.
So, we better get used to more fun and games disguised as legitimate protests at Waitangi each year.
You can’t make this up.
Not surprising the country is broke. And with all those settlements much has been channeled into 'charitable' activities that don't pay their fair share of tax. And yet, has it done any good when considering poverty and the appalling Maori stats? Not a jot. And I don't see things like the gift of the $45m Punakaiki Visitors on that list, nor all the countless millions, nay billions, spent on other Maori centric activities?
And still, it is never, ever, enough.
This data should be widely shared and publicized..... it might
make the sheeple realize that their role as cash cows is eternal.
PS And despite this largesse, Maori still complain to the UN Human Rights Commission about injustices!
“Meanwhile, the two big tribes are probably laughing all the way to the bank”.
Mike, they own the bank, the bank of the New Zealand taxpayer. A bank of withdrawals only, no deposits allowed.
The apartheid office of Crown Maori Relations needs to be shut down asap.
To put it another way, that is a lot of hospitals/homes for ALL New Zealanders not realised but simply given away for what? A bunch of fat cats milking the system. Agree, shut the Office of Crown Maori Relations down immediately - it is otherwise called a divorce! As said before, Finlayson et al should be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten kiwifruit.
I recently wrote to my MP asking how I might use the OIA to find out how much had been allocated to so-called Māori by way of Treaty Settlements. I never even received a reply, so well done Mike!
All valid comments here. However, we are the main reason it continues. WE taught the Maori, We allow continued claims, WE keep paying, We dont ask what the hell is going on, WE just roll over and pay, WE are shit scared of being cancelled We are terrified of being labelled racist. Until WE say enough is enough, nothing will change, nothing.
WE are suckers of the first water and Maori know it.
These settlements are about the maori pseudo elite getting their hand on large amounts of other peoples money in perpetuity, this is being enabled by weak uncaring politicians.
Post a Comment