The prospect of the Maori Party walking out of government over asset sales is all nicely timed for seasonal Waitangi Day fury over the role of the Treaty.
Here's what they're up to: National's plan to sell down our power companies runs into awkwardness over a clause in the State Owned Enterprises Act that says, "Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi."
National wants to remove that section so that the privatised companies can do whatever any other private company can do.
It was inserted when the first SOEs were being set up in 1987. Wellington legend has it that the Government of the day thought the words were nearly meaningless, and the awful drafting was intended to make it a sop (why couldn't it just say "The Crown must act consistently with the Treaty"?)
No one even knew what the "principles" of the Treaty were. Then Maori went to court and argued that a lot of New Zealand land was stolen, in the most monstrous and indefensible way. Eventually, and it took many lifetimes, we came to recognise that we had to put things right. A Treaty settlement process was set up.
When the first SOEs were set up, Maori who had claims coming down the pipeline said: hang on - if you hand over land that we are claiming, it can't be used in a settlement and we can never get justice.
The full Court of Appeal unanimously agreed in one of the most celebrated cases in our history.
You can read a fascinating discussion of the case here (Word doc) by Justice Baragwanath, then the QC who took the case with Sian Elias, now the chief justice and presiding judge of the Supreme Court.
Now the Government has decided it doesn't need to be bothered by that old section any more. It wants to be able to do exactly what the Court of Appeal stopped the government doing in the 1980s.
If the Treaty obligation is removed it sets us all back 25 years. After decades of going through the Treaty settlement process, here we go again. If the Government gets its way, then - as the Court of Appeal ruled - the past wrongs can't be set right.
I'm sure there are people who are frustrated with the Treaty process who will cheer the Government on. But if you feel like that, how would you feel if someone took away your right to redress when a court agreed you were wronged unfairly?
The Maori Party signed a mature deal with National when they agreed not to support asset sales but work with the Government on other issues. John Key has made suckers out of them. He didn't mention he was going to tear up a clause of central importance to his own government partner.
If his own allies can't trust him, can you?
It's bad faith and so there is no way the Maori Party can stay in government. But National needs to stop and rethink its economic strategy. Selling out New Zealand, by asset sales, or by foreign sales of our farmland - it doesn't work, and this is the latest reason.
John Pagani is a former senior adviser to past Labour leader Phil Goff and before that was a key player in Jim Anderton's Alliance team.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
An interesting point of discussion.
I am curious about how a company could act against the principles of the Treaty though. The point about selling land is valid and I agree the government should not be able to sell land where a treaty claim exists that hasn't been resolved...but how does that equate to an ownership stake in a government controlled company?
I suppose I am confused about the point of removing the clause? In what way does it make the sales more attractive to a private investor? Or is it just a scam to look towards removing treaty rights and protections from other areas as well?
I hope it does set the treaty settlement business back 25 years, in fact it would be good if it could obliterate it completely. The treaty is an agreement between two parties that no longer exist (i.e. one group wholly comprised of British colonialists funded by the British government, and a completely distinct group comprising Maori Iwi). The way land was taken from Maori certainly was wrong, but it's impossible to do anything about it. Reparation doesn't make sense because these two groups don't exist any more. Current day Iwi obviously have a proud heritage and can trace their lineage back to the time of the teaty, but they comprise modern New Zealanders who are also descended from European colonialists, as well as Maori. For them to obtain compensation under the Treaty from New Zealand, of which they are a part, is patently absurd.
Good on JK and National for getting the ball rolling! An interesting bit of propoganda from the negative left but it really hasnt changed my mind. Time to look forward to a brighter future !!! :)
Its important for the Crown to ensure retentions that allow for appropriate settlement of Treaty claims and not sell off assets that are being held for treaty settlements, yes.
It's equally important that the treaty does not prohibit the Government from selling any asset ever. Noone could buy something from the Government if the Government then retained the right to give it away in a treaty settlement.
The key word here is LAND. Is selling 49% of a company the same as selling land? Do the SOEs own the land they are sitting on or lease it? If the own it, what is prohibiting the Government from selling the asset without selling the land (answer, nothing).
Using the treaty as a political stick against asset sales is one of the cheapest political shots I have seen in a long time. It cheapens the treaty far more than the sales themself to make such gross generalisations about what is going on here. This post is, unfortunately, no more than substanceless politicking, using things that are non-analagous to make analogies. It's misleading.
The simple fact is - regardless of what you may think of the act or the clause - if the govt remove it or ignor it the maori party have to tear up their agreement. It is that simple.
I don't see why the Govt wants to remove that clause - if they maintain 51% of the shares, they can still ensure the companies act in compliance to the treaty. What's the problem ?
It is bad law because no-one knows what it means. It is purely and simply an open invitation to troublemakers and a goldmine for lawyers and grievance-mongers.
The decades spent going through the Treaty claim process is not a reason to prolong it again indefinitely, it is a reason to finalise it properly.
Neither is a clause of bad law a sound economic reason against the asset sales.
Part sales of a modern state owned (that means we have all paid for it) has nothing to do with the Treaty of Waitangi period, yes hurry up and change this ludicrois peice of legislation and a few others while they are at it.
At the end of the day the maori party ignored the votes in the election and because of greed for money and cars they slapped the backs of national once again prostituting themselves for the sake of baubles. The lastest verbal from key is that he has every confidence the maori party will stay with his govt,he let english sort sharples and turia out,so whats going to happen,thats anyones guess,if it benefits sharples and turia, then they will stay with key. If they were concerned about land,people,poverty,they would never had entered into a deal with national anyway.
Trial over killing that mesmerised a nation
Earthquake hits near Whanganui, Christchurch
Private school blamed for boy's death
'Girl next door' likes a cold beer
Watchdog investigates Countdown
Crusaders thump Highlanders in Christchurch
Employee defaces photo of boss' daughter
Bank warning after computer scam
Is it time to ditch the trolley buses?
Diversity of voices vital for a healthy democracy
Former 'torture ship' arrives in Wellington
Police officers' fitness levels drop
One call, a new home, and life begins again
Why not just get rid of the treaty so there isn't a problem. The stupid thing is 200 years old and no buyer from overseas will ever take notice of it anyway - get with the times people. get rid of Maori seats in parliament too - they are discriminatory based on race so who needs them.