Editorial: Tuhoe claim a minefield for National

John Key explicitly ruled out the possibility that ownership of Te Urewera National Park is at the top of the agenda. Photo / Mark Mitchell

At the best of times, reaching a comprehensive settlement over Waitangi claims is a delicate and tricky matter. But for a number of reasons the Tuhoe negotiations are proving especially difficult, and not just because some people in the National Government are becoming increasingly worried that their party is earning a reputation among voters for conceding too much to the Maori Party.

As the Weekend Herald reported, a number of ministers are understood to feel that there may be a public backlash because of a growing list of Maori Party successes. These include the signing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the $500 million Whanau Ora social services scheme and the proposals for the foreshore and seabed.

All of these are, to varying degrees, significant. But what makes the Tuhoe claim especially difficult is that the tribe is seeking a major concession that departs radically from precedents set in other Waitangi settlements. After two years of negotiations, Tuhoe remains adamant that ownership of Te Urewera National Park is at the top of its agenda.

Equally adamant is the Government, with the Prime Minister yesterday explicitly ruling out this possibility.

If the Government were to concede, the resulting settlement would go far beyond any similar previous arrangements in which iwi have obtained significant areas of Department of Conservation land only to return them immediately as part of the deal. For instance, Ngai Tahu gave Aoraki/Mt Cook back to the nation after its settlement.

At a practical level, the Tuhoe claim seems to envisage something similar inasmuch as it promises that public access to some of the country's most beautiful land would not be compromised in any way. But, importantly, it goes much further in aiming to take over the ownership and financial management of the land from the department after a 10-year transition period.

Given the justice of its claim, there is no question that Tuhoe is in line for major concessions and a payment that will be close to the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements of $170 million each. All the most recent historical research suggests the Tuhoe people were treated exceptionally harshly and that they are owed a full apology and generous compensation.

For instance, historian Paul Moon said the Crown had what was almost a scorched-earth policy towards Tuhoe. "Villages were burned and crops were destroyed, but there was almost an ethnic cleansing in a way."

What Government negotiators have to weigh is whether this exceptionally harsh treatment - even by the standards of 19th century New Zealand - warrants a new benchmark being set in Treaty settlements in the 21st century.

The Government itself must also consider the likelihood that there would, indeed, be a significant backlash against a deal which would be seen by many as alienating more than 200,000 hectares of land from the nation and creating a new precedent to expand the scope of Treaty claims.

Although there has been strong support for Treaty settlements over the years, a deal such as the one suggested by Tuhoe may be seen as a bridge too far, not just for the Government but for the whole Treaty process.

Not surprisingly, then, John Key moved to end speculation about it yesterday. But in shutting one door he opened another by acknowledging that some compromise had to be found. This should be taken as an encouraging sign.

In its foreshore and seabed proposals, the Government has shown it is capable of coming up with a workable compromise - a third way - and it needs to apply some similar lateral thinking to this case. A perfect solution will never be found - compromises are never perfect. But it should be possible to come up with a balance between competing interests and sensibilities to provide a lasting outcome that works in an imperfect world.