Sunday, November 15, 2015

Mike Butler: End tribunal’s permanent lobbying

If Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson thinks the Waitangi Tribunal is going into areas outside its scope he could introduce a bill to disestablish it.

News of an urgent hearing into whether the Crown has failed to reduce high Maori imprisonment and re-offending rates prompted the Minister's comment that he didn't know whether they're a permanent commission of inquiry or some kind of imperial senate.

The Waitangi Tribunal could be disestablished by repealing Sections 4-8 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

Lack of a Waitangi Tribunal would have little impact on any final historic settlements.

The Office of Treaty Settlements negotiates historic settlements without much input from the tribunal while relying a simple formula based on land area and claimed tribal membership.

The Waitangi Tribunal pretends to be an impartial tribunal but is in fact one of four main lobby groups pushing tribal interests at the expense of everyone else.

The other three such lobby groups are the New Zealand Maori Council, the Maori Party, and the Iwi Leaders Group -- in its various incarnations.

Instead of complaining and warning the tribunal to sort its priorities, Mr Finlayson could simply draft a bill and put it before parliament. He would have the numbers for it to pass.

Newstalk ZB, November 13, 2015.


Anonymous said...

Neither he nor his leader would have the guts to do that as it would upset the Maori Party which is all that is keeping them in power. Also why would Finlayson do that as it would kill his cash cow if he left politics.

paul scott said...

Ha ha 'The Imperial State' Not bad for Finlayson. Now he can eat his own distributed privilege and documents. You better watch out Mike; you keep writing like this and the 'One Nation One treaty' you are likely to end up with the medal of Quixote, an uplifting honour.

David. said...

Re The Treaty:
I have had the dubious distinction of being "tried" by a Treaty Tribunal because a gentleman with not a lot of reccomendations, maintained I had not $consulted$ enough over a consent application. This man was able to be funded by the Crown Forestry Rental Fund, to the extent of $80 000 00. There was a litany of lies and denigration presented, but our Founding Document was able to let this case go forward UNCONTESTED. Fiction? Try Claim Ref.WAI 898 A 68 (a).