KEY POINTS:
There is much to commend in the agreement in principle for the settlement of Tainui's claims over the Waikato River which was published just before Christmas. Negotiated through the sometimes-controversial Office of Treaty Settlements, it is a well-balanced document which not only vindicates the tribe's claims arising from the past, but provides a workable prescription for the river's future.
Indeed, the overarching purpose of the agreement is given as being to restore and protect the Waikato River for future generations. To explain the need for such a prescription, the principles point to the history of the river after the raupatu (confiscations) of the 1860s.
As settlers moved on to the confiscated land they built towns and cities and engaged in a wide range of economic activity such as farming, coal mining and power generation, as well as draining wetlands and constructing flood protection schemes.
The official history acknowledges the contribution all of this made to economic development. But there was a downside, a price to pay and - as well as the price paid by the Tainui people who regarded the river with spiritual reverence - it was paid by the river itself.
It is well known that the Waikato is polluted and despoiled. Its plant life and fisheries have been affected and, although it is much improved since the 1950s, at some times and in some places the mighty Waikato is not fit to swim in any longer.
The agreement in principle breathes new life into efforts to protect it, not just by recognising its importance to Tainui, but by making conservation the top priority for the future. To do this, a series of steps is envisaged including a process to set a strategy for managing the river and to form a statutory body to be known, rather grandly, as the Guardians. Among other things, the Guardians will have the job of ensuring there is a co-ordinated approach to achieving an overall objective.
Success, of course, is not guaranteed. In some senses the agreement seems to be creating an extra layer of committees and process with the risk that much paper work will be generated to little effect. On the other hand, it is clear that there are many groups and bodies that have interests in the river and it is not just desirable but necessary to co-ordinate their efforts.
If anything, acknowledgment of this diversity of interest is the most encouraging aspect of the agreed principles. Despite its relative brevity, the agreement manages to take account of different tribal interests. It emphatically recognises that there are iwi other than Tainui, each with its own unique relationship with the river.
Not only are their interests documented and to some extent catered for as well, but there is a disclaimer to the effect that nothing in the Tainui document is intended to impinge on those relationships.
The importance of this understanding - which runs through the document - cannot be underestimated. This year the Office of Treaty Settlements came in for some harsh criticism from a Waitangi Tribunal judge when six iwi and hapu complained they had been sidelined in negotiations with Ngati Whatua over an agreement in principle for Auckland. That case, and the judge's criticisms, added much weight to the suspicion that speed rather than thoroughness was the guiding light of the process, with the unfortunate consequence that historical complexities were glossed over.
While it is understandable that there should be political pressure to keep things moving as quickly as possible, it is far more important that settlements should be durable and able to stand the test of time. This is not likely to happen in agreements that rely on a history of convenience that oversimplifies the past.
