PUBLIC ASSETS BELONG TO ALL NEW ZEALANDERS: Firstly ‘What is a Publicly Owned Asset’.? This is ‘Public Commercial Assets owned by the ‘Public Sector’ that are able to generate income that the Government control. (they belong to all New Zealanders)
REFERENCE TO AN ARTICLE 14th March 2011 published by Dr Muriel Newman titled ‘Corporate Iwi Get Rich At Your Expense’ (Dr Muriel Newman established the NZ Centre for political Research as a ‘Public Policy Think-Tank’ in 2005 after 9 years as a Member of parliament, A Former Chamber of Commerce President. Her publication includes the description of a ‘shadowy, powerful group of tribal elite’, the driving force behind the acquisition of public assets (The assets that ALL Citizens own). The claiming of assets as an ‘Indigenous Right’. The group penetrating Maori and National Parties.
Auckland University Guest Commentator of NZCPR Prof. Elizabeth Rata has written extensively about dangers of NZ’s Liberal Democratic System of ‘Iwi Indigenous Rights’ Strategy. The threatening of the preservation of our ‘public commons’ eg ‘the coastline, National Parks, Water, Air- as the Iwi Elite seek to privatize ‘public assets’. Rata refers to a speech namely ‘People Power or Ethnic Elites?’ which was given to the ‘Anatomy of Power Conference at Auckland University in 2005’
As she explained the strategies over the previous 5 years as being a shift of strategies used by Iwi in their quest for ‘property rights’ and ‘constitutional recognition’ The using the Treaty Of Waitangi as a justification for a comprehensive indigenous group rights argument. The claiming customary rights are property rights guarantreed under English Common Law.
Elizabeth Rata states how interpretation is crucial ‘If Iwi approach were to be successful’, however the consequences for NZ are very serious. “The Property Rights argument will privatize large public socio-economic assets into the hands of Iwi Corporations” she said. “Hence creating a permenant gap between the small iwi elite with aristocratic pretensions on the one hand and the majority of New Zealanders of all ethnicities on the other”. This being the ‘inclusion of Iwi into the nations constitutional arrangement, that will undermine integrity and the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand
This concept may seem of remote academic interest but I want to show today how its interpretation is crucial. If the iwi approach were to be successful, the consequences for New Zealand are serious. The property rights argument will privatise large public socio-economic assets into the hands of iwi corporations. This will create a permanent gap between a small iwi elite with aristocratic pretensions on the one hand and the majority of New Zealanders of all ethnicities on the other. The larger group rights argument for the inclusion of iwi into the nation’s constitutional arrangements will undermine the integrity of the New Zealand nation.”
The Iwi Elite with the insatiable appetite for public resources, for the National Party to stay in power at that time they were prepared to sacrifice public ownershop of the coast of New Zealand to the Iwi Elite. 2003 the National Party reinterpreted a Court of Appeal ruling that indicated that some rare, remote and hard to prove pockets of customary title to the foreshore
What Elizabeth warned about in 2005 is occurring today. The Marine and Coastal Area Bill will privatise to iwi corporations the public commons that makes up the entire coastal area of New Zealand. The government has never sought an open mandate from the public for this course of action. It is instead the result of a cosy deal between powerful iwi interests – with an insatiable appetite for public resources – and a National Party that is so desperate to stay in power that it is prepared to sacrifice public ownership of the coast and seabed might still exit in NZ, as justification for the repeal of public ownership of the entire coastline. To ensure that Iwi Elite succeeded with their claim National reversed the burden of proof, Iwi would not have to prove customary title exists, the Crow
To pursue their goal, the National Party reinterpreted a 2003 Court of Appeal ruling, that indicated that some rare, remote and hard to prove pockets of customary title to the foreshore and seabed might still exist in New Zealand, as justification for the repeal of public ownership of the entire coastline.
To make sure elite iwi will succeed with their claims National has reversed the burden of proof: iwi will not have to prove customary title exits. Mational ruled out for Iwi to have to prove claims in a court of law, instead allowing deals to transfer millions if not billions of dollars worth of public assets to private corporation (Public assets that belong to ALL New Zealanders).
This was done through secret negotiations with a Government Minister. Additional to this they significantly lowered the threshold tests to ensure vast tracts of PUBLIC COASTLINE were transferred into Iwi Elite private hands.Please Note: Iwi Elite we voice “Our People”, however they do not have consent to speak for ALL people with Maori Ancestry DO NOT represent all people with Maori Ancestry,
They speak out of ‘Self Interest-Self Rewards’. Key members of the Iwi Elite make up the Iwi Chairs Forum that includes Mark Solomon, Tuku Morgan, Sommy Tau, Margaret Mutu, Toko Renata, Ngahiwi Tomoana, Apirana Mahuika. All have a close association with the government and have personally benefited, for instance Tuky Morgan was paid out at least $141,000 in directors fees, add $100,000 success fee’s for completing Tainui Waikato Settlement. He was also paid as a Crown Facilitator to help with the Iwi settlement process. Between November 2008 and March 1st, the Office Of Treaty Settlements paid him $171,000
In 2011 Maori Corporations were estimated to be worth $25 billion almost half the value of the NZ Stock Exchange (Wealth gained from privatization of public assets (Publically owned by ALL New Zealanders) given to them by successive NZ Governments, and they always want more and more.
Collectively, Maori corporations are understood to be worth as much as $25 billion – almost half of the value of the New Zealand stock exchange. This is the wealth that has originated from the privatization of public assets given to them by successive government. But now they want more. With their huge appetite for wealth and power, they have a mineral rich foreshore and seabed, the generating of vast commercial returns from mining iron-sands, setting up marine farms, and a myrid of commercial opportunities that have arisen out of their ownership rights
The Iwi Leaders Forum have held regular meetings with successive governments, given access to confidential cabinet papers. The Māori Party having this cozy relationship with the National Iwi Chairs Forum as they have emerged as the key stakeholder group. The Māori Party allowing them access to the key cabinet strategy committee on Treaty issues which has comprised of successive governments.
If Iwi Elite Leaders want it, so do they Maori Party. Iwi Elite through the Māori Party doorway the focus on the prime target being the ownership and control of fresh water. Whanau Ora providing a wide range of lucrative opportunities for Iwi Elite to contract out service provisions in social areas including Housing and Corrections.
Margaret Mutu has been an influential voice, activist of the Iwi Elite, appointed the Chair of the Iwi Leaders Constitution Group with Moana Jackson the convenor (Moana Jackson had a special role at the UN UNDRIP Planning in 1990) Iwi Leaders Group preparation of a report namely ‘ to be the dissemination to Iwi and given to the Crown as the model for New Zealand’s Constitutional arrangements.
Now the National Party ‘Chriss Luxon’ Prime minister has been put in a dire situation as with Winston Peters NZ First and David Seymour -Act Party. Because the National Party had been jumping to the tune of the powerful Iwi Elite Corporations, to privatize valuable ‘Public Assets) owned by ALL New Zealanders. National Party had ceded to their demands, betrayed the vast majority of New Zealanders, successive governments have not protected our public assets, or the publics interests.
...
