Iwi want no part of sham talks

Written By: - Date published: 9:51 am, September 19th, 2012 - 16 comments
Categories: privatisation, treaty settlements, water - Tags:


Only 12 people turned up to Key’s first sham talks with iwi. He might have gotten a better turnout if he had come with cupcakes or, you know, a genuine intention to negotiate in good faith.

That turn-out – its Tainui’s way of saying ‘see you in court’.

16 comments on “Iwi want no part of sham talks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    19 September 2012 at 10:08 am

    And Hone does his usual direct, blunt and apt talking on the matter:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1209/S00281/no-consultation-no-deal.htm

    I wish to thank the people of Tainui for their refusal to buy into National’s ‘consultation’ proposals” said MANA leader and MP for Te Tai Tokerau, Hone Harawira.
    …
    “Yesterday the Prime Minister stated his government’s position” said Harawira. “They will not consult with Maori; they are simply calling hui so that when this case goes to court they can say they ‘acted in good faith’”.

    “Furthermore, government is only meeting with those iwi leaders whose people hold mana whenua across those waterways critical to the government’s asset sales programme. Tainui’s response has been clear and admirable – no consultation, no deal – a position MANA wholeheartedly supports”.

    “The clear challenge now lays with those iwi leaders from Tuwharetoa and Te Arawa”.
    …
    “I sincerely hope they choose Maori rights over government deals …”

  2. grumpy 2
    19 September 2012 at 10:59 am

    These guys need to be very careful. Good faith bargaining needs to be both ways. They need to be sure they are not falling into the trap that they will regret if this ends up in court.

  3. Dr Terry 3
    19 September 2012 at 11:06 am

    Extremely important that Maori take all steps to prevent the Key attempt to divide and rule. If Key ever held any mana with Maori, he certainly must have lost that now (especially after so much of his denigration, including toward the Maori King).

    • grumpy 3.1
      19 September 2012 at 11:12 am

      Do Ngai Tahu recognise the Maori King? I don’t think so. If not, then accusing Key of denigration is a bit off the mark.

  4. BernyD 4
    19 September 2012 at 11:17 am

    Just a thought, but could they publish the “Minutes” of the Hui ?.
    Of course he could always refuse to read them.
    He might have to hire a translator though.

    • grumpy 5.1
      19 September 2012 at 12:54 pm

      So, here we have it.

      “Ngati Tuwharetoa is in an extraordinary position of having customary … and proprietary rights over the very lakes, waterways and geothermal fields [where energy companies operate].”

      Those who have propriety and customary right over the actual asset sites wish to negotiate with the Government.

      Those who do not want to join with those that do to get a piece of the cake. No hydro power stations in Northland Hone?

      Last time a joint approach was made, it resulted in North Island maori with no fishing area getting a slice of Ngai Tahu’s. Not likely to happen again it seems……………

      • Populuxe1 5.1.1
        20 September 2012 at 1:58 am

        Pretty much. Such an arrangement will only further the interests of individual Iwi with the good fortune to have customary title to the right bits of the country. It will not benefit Maori as a whole, and in fact is to the detriment of less well placed Iwi and the growing demographic of urban Maori. In actual fact the Tangata Whenua as a whole enjoy the greatest benefit from state ownership.

  6. Treetop 6
    19 September 2012 at 12:44 pm

    The government initially thought that they could negotiate with iwi who have a claim to water, this back fired when Maori united. The government are trying to use the divide and rule tactic to fragment Maori being united on ownership, management and right to sell water.

    • grumpy 6.1
      19 September 2012 at 12:56 pm

      If directly affected iwi want to risk their possibilities by getting tied up with unaffected, then that is their decision.

  7. Fortran 7
    19 September 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Why waste time and money on these meetings – “do not pass go” – go straight to court. –

    The courts will uphold Maori rights, as they have always done in the past.

  8. blue leopard 8
    19 September 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Hmm …Don’t know if doing a “no show” is a very good idea…just ends up being a case of shooting themselves in the foot… a group not involving themselves in “the process” can be very much used against them.

    Hope they have good advisors 🙁

    Any insight on this concern would be most appreciated

    • Jokerman 8.1
      19 September 2012 at 6:58 pm

      participation. assimilation.accommodation. master mask. key’s mask slips further every day. he is a smug, foolish man. pride cometh…

    • Colonial Viper 8.2
      19 September 2012 at 8:01 pm

      a group not involving themselves in “the process” can be very much used against them.

      Don’t worry…the risks of attending are just as high…”The Government has consulted with all major iwi and after lengthy discussions, this is what has been decided [whether they like it or not]”

      • blue leopard 8.2.1
        20 September 2012 at 3:37 pm

        CV

        Yeah, sadly it does seem the system is likely to have it all sewn up to ensure private big money interests win out.

        However even taking that into account my thoughts were that perhaps its better to play the game, show attendance and when the time came (which it looks inevitable that it will) for proving there was no good faith evident from the government, I wouldn’t have thought it was very difficult, considering the public statements that have been made since the whole idea of “consultation” arose, to prove the process was a sham.

        Whereas with not attending the finger of no good faith (or variations on the theme) can be pointed at the groups acting for Maori interests/rights.

        Iwi are a powerful group with more rights perhaps (?) than ordinary citizens’ groups, and powerful lawyers (I hope) so I sincerely hope this scenario has been considered.

        (However my comment is also addressing what spin could be made in the media as well as in the legal process)

  9. Jokerman 9
    19 September 2012 at 7:33 pm

    re ‘faith’. Read Satre. i.e. ‘bad faith’. (inauthenticity)
    (read them tealeaves and weep John)