KEY POINTS:
It is beyond argument that the amount of land available nationwide for Treaty settlements is a tiny fraction of the territories under Maori claim. Land in private ownership is beyond the claimants' reach, so, for all practical purposes, are national parks and other estates held by the Department
of Conservation. Almost the only significant tracts available are the state farms administered by Landcorp, which has put a number of properties on the market. Inexplicably, the Government's Office of Treaty Settlements has decided not to buy them.
Two of the farms, one in the Far North and the other on the Coromandel, have been occupied by Maori claimant groups determined to block the sales. The occupations, led by elders, have been orderly, determined, responsible and completely understandable. The explanation offered by the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations, Mark Burton, this week for the Crown's failure to buy the Coromandel property, was facile.
The farm, if sold into private hands, could be compulsorily repurchased, he said, if it was needed for a Treaty settlement. A memorial to that effect would be registered on the title. As a spokesman for the Hauraki claimants, John McEnteer, has pointed out, once private owners have established themselves on the property no Government is likely to tell them they must sell their home. The property is one of just two available sites within its area that offer the iwi a financial base better than the scattered 60ha of sections the Government has put aside for their settlement.
The Prime Minister was not up with the play when questioned about the Coromandel sale on Monday, as indeed she was unaware of Landcorp sales proceeding when she lambasted National at the last election for advocating the sale of state-owned farms. She needs to be assured by Mr Burton that the Crown can meet any likely settlement with Hauraki without "landbanking" the 1100ha Landcorp block. She would not relish the prospect of forcibly repossessing the $10 million Whenuakite station from buyers who, regardless of a caveat on the title, had invested much affection and treasure in its prime location with views of Whitianga and Cooks Beach.
Former trade minister Jim Sutton, urged to retire for the replenishment of the Labour Party, displays his usual common sense as chairman of Landcorp. He is prepared to stop the sale if there are stronger interests in the block than he realised. But this should not be Landcorp's decision. It is not economically ideal that the state remains our largest corporate farmer and there is no good reason for productive land to stay in public ownership except to be returned to descendants of anyone wrongly dispossessed.
The Far North case appears similar. A 9.2ha coastal block at Rangiputa was lent rather than sold to settlers in 1859, according to the Waitangi Tribunal, and never returned. The tribunal found the owners, Ngati Kahu, lost 100,000ha in total, for which it has been offered $8 million by the Office of Treaty Settlements. The Rangiputa block alone, with its white sand beachfront and sea views, is valued at $4 million. The office says the land is not needed for the settlement but the iwi are determined that it will not be sold.
The office, designed to short-circuit Waitangi claims, negotiates on grounds the Crown largely sets for itself and its procedure is frequently under fire before the tribunal. The office is less interested in investigating than categorising claims and is accused of side-lining smaller claimants. It has first right of refusal on Landcorp sales but seems not to be using it in these cases. It forgets, perhaps, that short-sighted financial savings may come at a cost to historical finality.
