David Slack, another Public Addressee, posted an interesting wee survey on the Treaty of Waitangi. The purpose of the carefully selected questions (and even more carefully selected answers) is obviously to encourage us to all conclude that this Don Brash Orewa Speech thing is just a big beat up.
Unfortunately Mr Slack is just that. Let's go through and take a look at some of the selective statistics that he is referencing. (Question in Bold, Answer in Plain, my ranting in italics)
Question 1.What has been the approximate total cost of Treaty of Waitangi settlements since 1989? According to the Office of Treaty Settlements, the total cost of settlements since 1989 has been $596 million.OK. But is this really the full extent of all of the settlements? He lists them below in another question. Most notably absent is the true cost (both up front and ongoing) of the Waitangi Fisheries Settlement. Looking at this site we can see that the Sealord component alone of this settlement cost $350 million- a sum which if added to the Slack answer would make a not inconsiderable difference. Whats more this settlement commits the crown to substantial ongoing liabilities the value of which must surely measure into the hundred of millions of dollars.
What was the approximate size of Telecom's profit for the year ending June 2003? Telecom's net profit for the year ending June 2003 was $709 million. In 2001, it was $643 million; in 2000, $783 million; and in 1999, $822 million. The only year in which it did not achieve a net profit greater than the total value of of all treaty settlements was in 2002, when it had to write off $725 million of its investment in the Australian company AAPT. This was more than four times the total value of the settlement with Tainui, who have found themselves pilloried in the business press for making poor investment decisions.This is the 'Big Bad Multinational Corporate Greed' component that necessarily comes with almost any left wing social commentary. If the share holders of Telecom want to they are able to get stroppy about any such losses and wasteful use of resources. One might say that the New Zealand taxpayers (as 'shareholders' in the country) are getting stroppy also- as is their right. If the shareholders of Telecom have been slack in reprimanding their board then so what. Let us not as a country be slack in reprimanding our governors.
How much revenue did the Government collect for the year ending June 2003? According to Treasury, the Government collected $57 billion in total for the year ending June 2003.And just how did they collect said revenue? By taking it forcibly of you and I; the people who had to work their asses off to earn it. I don't know about you but we seem to be being lined up for a 'if the government only pisses away 0.01% of the annual tax take then that is OK' statement. If the government wants to take my money by force (and that is a discussion for another time) then the least they can do is be responsible with the money! Slack standards of accountability are not acceptable no matter what proportion of the kete is at stake.
Of all the money the New Zealand Government has spent in the last five years, what proportion of that has been spent on Treaty settlements? According to Treasury , in the past five years, the Government has spent $227 billion. Treaty settlements in that period totaled $248 million, or 0.109% of total spending. If you paid $1,000,000 in tax in the last five years, your contribution to treaty settlements was $1090. If you paid $100,000 in tax in the last five years, your contribution to treaty settlements was $109.And what proportion has been spent through other agencies such as Te Mangai Paho? Te Puni Kokiri? the Pipi Foundation? The Treaty Settlement process is but a drop in the ocean in terms of $$$. If anything successive governments have been slack in making full and final recompense for justifiable grievances- viz just and proper Treaty settlements. It's the 'recompense' that is being provided for completely unjustifiable reasons that is the real concern for most New Zealanders.
How many Treaty claims have been settled? According to the Office of Treaty Settlements, there have been 15 completed settlements since 1989: Ngati Tama $14.5 millionNgati Ruanui$41,000,000Te Uri o Hau$15,600,000Pouakani$2,650,000Ngati Turangitukua$5,000,000Ngai Tahu$170,000,000Te Maunga$129,032Rotoma$43,931Waimakuku$375,000Waikato/Tainui raupatu$170,000,000Ngati Whakaue$5,210,000Haui $715,682Commercial Fisheries $170,000,000Ngati Rangiteaorere$760,000WaitomoThe Crown transferred land at the Waitomo Caves to the claimant group, subject to a lease, and provided a loan $1,000,000.Date of Deed 1989A good question to have asked might have been: 'Of the 15 aggrieved groups with whom a settlement has been reached, how many are back already for another bite of the cherry? And, how many had had full and final settlements or similar in the past?'. The last National Government was particularly slack at upholding past settlement agreements. Much of the furore over the recent Foreshore and Seabed decision is centered on Marine Farming rights- something that is surely covered by the definition of fishing in the Fisheries Claims Settlement Act. We need to resolve past grievances. We need to resolve them swiftly, fully and finally.
How many Treaty claims have been heard by the Waitangi Tribunal and are approaching settlement? You can read about progress at this web site, which reports that there are twelve claims at various stages of settlement.According to the Office of Treaty Settlements, progress in historical Treaty settlement negotiations is best measured by the number of claimant groups moving toward settlement of all their claims. Many separate claims may be lodged by individuals from the same tribal group. The number of registered claims therefore gives an inflated picture of how many settlements will be required. Settlements are currently occurring at a rate of about one every six months.And what of those making claim to tax dollars on the basis of race outside the Treaty settlement process? What is this wonderful euphemism 'historical' Treaty settlement process? Is the also a 'fanciful future opportunities' Treaty settlement process? As noted above successive governments have been slack at tidying this mess up; hence where we are today. It is surely line in the sand time!
Who has the final say in a Treaty settlement? Parliament has the final say. Click here to read about the process of Treaty negotiations and settlements.Hence the outstanding promise shown by poll results such as these. This is far more than the second major party taking up the political slack. It was a truly phenomenal polling turn around founded on a single political issue.
Tertiary students have access to 1451 scholarships for study. How many more scholarships are available solely to Maori?The Sunday Star Times reports here that Maori students can apply for an additional 154 scholarships not open to others.Funny how the Sunday Star Times didn't note the number of scholarships that 'orange haired and be-freckled but otherwise slack beer swilling' students could apply for to the exclusion of others. Once again, we should be appalled that such racially based scholarships exist irrespective of the actual proportion of them. Let's have a tertiary education system with acceptance on color and class blind merit and assistance on need. Enough of our student load fueled 'shotgun' approach to tertiary enducation. Enough dodgy tertiary institutions masquerading as Universities.
The Government presently spends about $7.7 billion per year on health. Maori represent 14.7% of the population. What approximate proportion of the health vote do they receive, including special grants for Maori health? The Sunday Star Times reports here that the Ministry of Health estimates that last year it spent $1105 million on Maori health through its mainstream funding 14.7% of the total health spending of $7.7 billion. Additional money targeted specifically at Maori lLast year amounted to $158m, about 2% of the total.As above, what proportion was targeted at 'orange haired and freckle faced people' purely on the basis of their skin color and ethnic lineage? There is no slack in our health system. We have long waiting lists for most quality of life restoring elective surgery. Playing favorites programs do not have a place in a need based health system.
Last year, the Court of Appeal gave a decision which gave rise to the current debate about ownership of the foreshore. What did that case decide? The Court of Appeal held that the Maori Land Court has jurisdiction to consider whether the foreshore and seabed are Maori customary land. You can find concise analysis of the case by Damian Stone, of Bell Gully, here.Oh lordy a question the sentiment of which I agree with entirely. The Court of Appeal ruling was little more than jurisdictional. The Labour government (and I suspect one member more than others) got their knickers in a twist over nothing. I bet you thought it was only the Waikato Law School admission criteria that were hopeless! *grins* If you want something even more concise ask Damian Stone for a list of his Bell Gully colleagues who are Waikato graduates!
If the Government passes a law that declares who owns the foreshore, who can fully and finally over-rule them? A large enough group of voters is the only group that can effectively fully and finally over-rule a Government law, by voting in a new Government capable of passing new legislation that overturns previous legislation, or over-rules any finding of any court or tribunal. Click here to read about New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.Governments do not pass laws, Parliament does. But in practical terms Mr Slack is correct here. Parliament is sovereign and we live in a democracy so a large enough block of voters could potentially amass sufficient Parliamentary power to overturn any previous enactments. Or... we could just have a bloody revolution... *rubs hands with glee*
Which of the following is not a treaty which was entered into many years ago? The right to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus is not a treaty. It is, however, very old law and yet, curiously, many people continue to find it helpful in defending their human rights.I bet he put this one in for Margaret! You'd have to be a pretty slack law student or polly not to get it. It kinda stands out as the 'so bloody what' question of the bunch. The concept of Habeas Corpus well predates the legal formalism thereof in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. But anyway.... so what, the liberties that it protects are in fact important and would (or at least should) be protected still even if it were thrown out tomorrow.