Many local authorities have a form of joint management agreement with their local iwi. These days most iwi representatives turn up to meetings looking for points of leverage with their councils. They want Maori representation on all council-controlled organisations so they can work out the points at which pressure can be applied to channel money from local ratepayers towards the Maori aristocracy. They use a perverted version of Article 2 of the Treaty which guaranteed chiefs control over their lands, while failing to acknowledge that any rights went if the land was sold. They play their cards cautiously, but firmly. Realising that if their demands were put to a local referendum they would almost certainly lose, they apply pressure to mayors, councillors and officials in the hope that the councils won’t want unpleasantness, nor the expense of referenda, and will just pay up. Waikato-Tainui’s pressure on Auckland’s Watercare for an increase in the levy paid for water from the Waikato river is a case in point. The public wasn’t told what was proposed, nor how much was being demanded until the increase had been agreed.
Another shocking case I’ve been told about involved a bridge which a council wanted to construct. “No” said the iwi. “The ancestors of Maori in the area are buried where the bridge foundations are planned to go”. When the council pulled back, the iwi followed up with an offer: Maori would overlook the insult to the burial place of their tipuna if the council agreed to pay the tribe lots of money. This is not an isolated case. If councils in this situation still don’t pay up, there are threats; in some cases, legal action is taken on the grounds that the ancestors’ bones are sacred. But, as you get the drift, the ancestors’ remains can be negotiable if cash can be extorted by their descendants.
Cultural reports are regularly sought if any new development is contemplated. I’ve heard of several demands in the South Island, and I’ve been told of a similar case in Tauranga. These days, iwi seem to have a standard “report” on their computers which they tweak slightly each time a report is needed so that it applies to the new case. The iwi then sets the price. It’s becoming quite a profitable business.
This kind of stand-over tactic uses up officials’ time and, if settled, can be costly. As we know, development in New Zealand is expensive compared with other countries, and the greasing of palms using bogus Treaty claims only adds more to the total cost of any project. If traditional Maori society were democratic then at least some of the money might flow back to ordinary Maori. But democracy plays little or no part in the traditional Maori world, and it will be ordinary Maori who pay disproportionately for their leaders’ Treaty antics through the consequent increase in rates and rents they then have to pay. Of course, everyone including rich and poor Maori will get to drive over the bridge once finished, but meantime there is a bonus for the few iwi leaders who are well positioned to extort it.
It is urgent that those statutory opportunities allowing for the extortion of money from local authorities using perverted Treaty of Waitangi claims are brought under control by legislation. There is nothing in the Treaty designed to facilitate stand-over tactics. The more such cases come to light, the more an argument can be advanced for enforcing democracy within tribal structures. If iwi keep inventing new privileges under Article Two of the Treaty, then the Crown should use Article 3 which says that Maori rights and duties are the same as those of everyone else. It makes no sense to use Article 2 to create special privileges for Maori while then promising equal rights in Article 3.
All of this is an argument for David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill that is in the offing. And it is not just iwi bandits who need to be restrained. The courts are starting to frolic about over the meaning of the Treaty and its application, producing their own far-fetched interpretations of the Treaty. Seymour’s legislation needs to make it clear to judges that Parliament makes the law, and the courts apply it.
Another shocking case I’ve been told about involved a bridge which a council wanted to construct. “No” said the iwi. “The ancestors of Maori in the area are buried where the bridge foundations are planned to go”. When the council pulled back, the iwi followed up with an offer: Maori would overlook the insult to the burial place of their tipuna if the council agreed to pay the tribe lots of money. This is not an isolated case. If councils in this situation still don’t pay up, there are threats; in some cases, legal action is taken on the grounds that the ancestors’ bones are sacred. But, as you get the drift, the ancestors’ remains can be negotiable if cash can be extorted by their descendants.
Cultural reports are regularly sought if any new development is contemplated. I’ve heard of several demands in the South Island, and I’ve been told of a similar case in Tauranga. These days, iwi seem to have a standard “report” on their computers which they tweak slightly each time a report is needed so that it applies to the new case. The iwi then sets the price. It’s becoming quite a profitable business.
This kind of stand-over tactic uses up officials’ time and, if settled, can be costly. As we know, development in New Zealand is expensive compared with other countries, and the greasing of palms using bogus Treaty claims only adds more to the total cost of any project. If traditional Maori society were democratic then at least some of the money might flow back to ordinary Maori. But democracy plays little or no part in the traditional Maori world, and it will be ordinary Maori who pay disproportionately for their leaders’ Treaty antics through the consequent increase in rates and rents they then have to pay. Of course, everyone including rich and poor Maori will get to drive over the bridge once finished, but meantime there is a bonus for the few iwi leaders who are well positioned to extort it.
It is urgent that those statutory opportunities allowing for the extortion of money from local authorities using perverted Treaty of Waitangi claims are brought under control by legislation. There is nothing in the Treaty designed to facilitate stand-over tactics. The more such cases come to light, the more an argument can be advanced for enforcing democracy within tribal structures. If iwi keep inventing new privileges under Article Two of the Treaty, then the Crown should use Article 3 which says that Maori rights and duties are the same as those of everyone else. It makes no sense to use Article 2 to create special privileges for Maori while then promising equal rights in Article 3.
All of this is an argument for David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill that is in the offing. And it is not just iwi bandits who need to be restrained. The courts are starting to frolic about over the meaning of the Treaty and its application, producing their own far-fetched interpretations of the Treaty. Seymour’s legislation needs to make it clear to judges that Parliament makes the law, and the courts apply it.
Historian Dr Michael Bassett, a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
In 1990 I was traveling through Indonesia at the time of the Suharto regime. Then, any business venture had to include provision for the local army chief, either being bribed or being brought in as a partner. When busses traveled along the road, they had to stop at checkpoints, where they gave the army a percentage of their takings. It was similar in many other Asian and African countries. I thought how lucky I was to live in NZ. Little did I know what would happen in 30 years.
The Bill is wrong.
This rot needs to be stopped but there are no principles in the Treaty so trying to interpret something that doesn’t exist is fraught with legal problems.
Just honour the basic document instead of complicating the situation.
Of course the completely obvious answer is for the local councils, mayors et al to grow some stones tell them no and at the same time place it in the public domain, loudly.....
Everything becomes very clear when sunshine is applied to it.
If Auckland water and Meridian in the south had let the light shine upon thier dirty secret 'koha' deals then these corrupt and frankly mafia style tactics would be seen for what they are. This is a similar tactic to the way the Dome Valley dump suddenly went from being a no, no to a yes please as the process was greased with a lot of cash....
Until these organisations speak and our media decide enough is enough and publish iwi will continue to gouge the system for all it is worth.
Avarice from these people has no end.
Isn't it amazing how concern for the 'sacred' is easily trumped by that most profane of things, money.
It does make one wonder how seriously those promoting the 'culture' rort take their own bullshit.
And all this at a time when referenda for wards is in the offing and cunning artful maori (and very many are) are moderating demands to maintain a low profile. The concern with specifically maori representatives is that they are primarily concerned not with the common good but with extortion for maori. It is incredible how Councils have adopted so much policy stipulating pander to maori. Especially surprising when Finlayson maintains the Treaty applies to the Crown, not necessarily to local bodies.
Say it like it is: NZ is suffering from state sanctioned corruption at local and national levels - and we the people are paying for it through our rates and taxes. Oh and don’t forget our water and power bills either - thanks for that Meridian and Watercare, to name just two we actually know about. There will be others.
Sadly Finlayson speaks with forked tongue - he was a Key enabler (pun intended) of those hopping on the gravy train.
Finlayson is slippery as an eel. If what he says about only the Crown is bound by the Treaty (it makes sense), then why are local Councils rushing to meet their 'commitments to the Treaty', when they don't need too? Probably just spineless and give in to the bullying.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.