A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 settle grievances in that area. This has reportedly resulted in the “serious likelihood that redress for [their] grievances will be given to others, and their claims will be disposed of without being heard or adjudicated when legislation is introduced to implement the settlement”.21 38. Maori groups have also reported that the Government’s settlement policy redefines existing culturally based traditional hapu and iwi structures and traditional leadership structures, which in some instances has caused conflict or division among Maori groups. In this connection, the Waitangi Tribunal has expressed concern over the approach of the Government in negotiating with Maori groups during the settlement process, noting that in the particular case of the Te Arawa, “Te Arawa is now in a state of turmoil as a result [of the Treaty settlement negotiations]. Hapu are in contest with other hapu and the preservation of tribal relationships has been adversely affected. We are left fearing for the customary future of the Te Arawa Waka as a result”.22 In another case, the Waitangi Tribunal made the troubling observation that although the Treaty settlement process is supposed to improve Maori-State relationships, “what we are seeing ... is that the process of settling is damaging more relationships than it is improving”.23 39. Another concern is that the Government wholly defines what and how much redress is available to settle historical claims. Government policy clarifies that “the Crown has to set limits on what and how much redress is available to settle historical claims. Redress must be fair, affordable, and practicable in today’s circumstances”.24 Most settlement packages have included an apology by the Crown, and some form of cultural redress and financial compensation.25 40. However, Maori have expressed concern that the value of the settlements is grossly out of proportion to the value of what has been taken from them, amounting only to an estimated 1 to 3 per cent of the value of their total loss. Further, the Government will not consider rights over certain resources, including oil and gas, as the basis of redress packages. (In this connection, the Waitangi Tribunal has clearly found that “it is in breach of Treaty principle for the Crown to exclude petroleum-based remedies from settlements”.26) While, as noted in paragraph 34 above, the Government has recently shown more flexibility in considering remedies for the loss of certain resources, such as culturally significant sites within conservation areas, it is evident that much more needs to be done in this regard to satisfy Maori claimants. 41. Finally, under the Government settlement policy, all settlements of historical grievances, that is, those arising from acts or omissions by the Government before 21 September 1992, are final; in exchange for the settlement redress, the settlement legislation will prevent the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or any other judicial body or tribunal from re-opening the historical claims. According to the Government, the lack of review promotes the finality of settlement agreements, making the procedure as effective and efficient as possible, and helping achieve the sense of final resolution that the settlement process is designed to facilitate. The Government has also pointed out that nothing precludes the 21 22 23 24 25 26 12 Linda Thorton, Tamaki Legal Barristers and Solicitors, letter to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and indigenous people, 19 July 2010. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Impact of the Crown’s Treaty Settlement Policy on Te Arawa Waka, Wai 1353 (2007), p. 195. Waitangi Tribunal, The Tamaki Makaurau Settlement Process Report, Wai 1362 (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2007), p. 1. New Zealand, Office of Treaty Settlements, Healing the Past, Building a Future: A Guide to the Treaty of Waitangi Claims and Negotiations with the Crown, summary edition (Wellington), p. 15. Ibid., p. 43. Waitangi Tribunal, ”The petroleum report, Wai 796” (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2003), p. 79.