If 2007 was the Crown's absolute low-watermark in Treaty of Waitangi settlement progress, why has 2008 produced new highs?
To re-craft an electoral aphorism, it's the leadership, stupid, though such leadership has many faces.
History will look kindly on the role played by the Waitangi Tribunal in this narrative. For it was the 2007 Tamaki Makaurau and Te Arawa Settlement reports which stopped patently unjust deals in their tracks, and consigned the Crown's one-model-fits-all settlement policy, "Red Book", to the trash can.
More pervasive was the call by Judges Carrie Wainwright and Caren Fox for inclusive settlements which foster whanaungatanga and tribal relationships.
Initial reactions to the reports were dismissive, but the Crown has since quietly re-engineered negotiation policy to adopt an inclusive, regional settlement approach which resists picking winners in the way of the Ngati Whatua Agreement in Principle debacle.
The Fourth Estate also laid a platform. A close review of the Herald over the past two years shows brave reporting in the face of a seemingly entrenched "one Auckland tribe" myth and the might of Crown settlement doctrine in play.
This was the lens through which the public was exposed to shabby practices, which in turn led to close parliamentary scrutiny. The upshot was strong public reaction to one hapu claiming a city for themselves and to tactics which appear to no longer form part of the Crown's negotiation arsenal. Maori Television also played a powerful role.
Then, there is the acknowledged energy displayed by the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Dr Michael Cullen. There has been some focus on the way the minister has jump-started the inertia experienced under the watch of his Labour Government predecessors. The comparisons are inevitable to an earlier incarnation of the portfolio - one who was also a powerful and long-serving senior minister; was willing to stamp a personal imprimatur; and who also had an eye to legacy - namely, Sir Douglas Graham. Of course, the spectre of electoral defeat is a potent motivation in 2008.
One person does not a settlement make, and so acknowledgement is due to the officials. Of the manifestations of indefatigable endeavour, a few warrant mention: the lights at the Charles Fergusson Building and No 1 The Terrace remaining lit into the early hours on most days this year; frequent post-midnight emails; almost daily ministerial briefings and papers; negotiation teams criss-crossing the country weekly; and internal raids between negotiation teams to borrow staff to make the next deadline.
Ultimately, there are the rangatira who wove the strongest strands to bind people together. As each achievement unfolds, we read of the pivotal roles played by those who are rangatira through whakapapa and those through merit and associated tribal acclamation. Perhaps the most tangible mark of leadership is the way in which implacable opponents during the Te Arawa settlement hearings found a way to not only craft a less exclusive Treaty deal, but to coalesce with other tribes into the Central North Island collective who saw in the nation's largest single settlement to date. So, there are those who get leadership and those who don't.
After a nearly 12-month hiatus of press on the discredited Ngati Whatua deal, a solitary sour Treaty note was played in last week's Herald. In an odd role reversal, Ngati Whatua - the Crown's ally during the charged Waitangi Tribunal hearings process - took shots at the Crown and the "other Maori groups who consider they have overlapping interests in the Auckland area".
Behind the barbs, it is to be remembered that:
* The June 2007 Waitangi Tribunal Report listed the previous four Crown settlements and millions of dollars this one Ngati Whatua hapu had already received from the Crown.
* Ngati Whatua's stalled fifth Crown deal was set to give them exclusive ownership of iconic maunga (mountains) and assets/rights of first refusal estimated to have a value in the many tens of millions. The tribunal considered that deal to be the most flawed to come before it.
Belatedly released Crown documents disclosed: "The [Ngati Whatua] Trust Board don't want to meet with cross-claimants because (a) they claim manawhenua over Auckland (Tamaki, North Shore, West Auckland) and deny the manawhenua claims of others (except perhaps for certain 'contested areas' on the margins of the claim area).
"And (b) for the trust board to meet with cross-claimants could be seen as tantamount to acknowledging the legitimacy of cross-claims." ( November 24, 2003).
Ngati Whatua's leadership sent a message last week to "those who are a long way behind" - Ngati Whatua claim "the controlling iwi interest of Central Auckland" and will apply their "full resources" to defend their "mana whenua position in central Auckland".
On a more positive note, the groups whose challenges to the Ngati Whatua deal were vindicated by the Waitangi Tribunal and who were described by the tribunal as the "other tangata whenua of Tamaki Makaurau" have been working to progress an inclusive settlement for all Auckland's tangata whenua.
The time should come soon when all customary interests sit with the Crown to discuss such a settlement.
Hopefully, the generous demonstrations of leadership will not be lost on those who have the most to lose.
* Paul F. Majurey belongs to the Marutuahu tribes (Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Ngati Whanaunga and Ngati Tamatera) and was also the lawyer who represented them in the Tamaki Makaurau inquiry.
Developments with tangata whenua: what spells success - or not?