NOTE: THIS FORMULA HAS NOW ENTERED JURISPRUDENCE: Is regularly cited by subsequent courts. In 1993 the Court Of Appeal said “The Treaty created an enduring relationship of fiduciary nature akin to a partnership, each party accepting a positive duty to act in good faith, fairly, reasonably and honourably towards each other”. And this is as far as any ‘binding’ decision of the Court is prepared to go. Subject to what is discussed later any more sweeping statements favourable or unfavourable to Māori in later cases which are no necessary to the actual decision can be ignored  by later courts. Therefore this ‘imaginative analogy has been misunderstood and in some cases mischievously so to create the myth that there is a legal ‘partnership’ between all Māori people on one hand and the Crown on the other, exposing ‘shallow reasoning’. So when one questions:- What are the terms of the ‘partnership?, What are the ‘obligations’ of Māori people to the Crown?. What are the shares that each enjoys and in respect of what property?. Is it all of the myriad property which goes to make up the totality of the assets of New Zealand? Where is the place for existing ‘private property rights for Māori and Non-Maori?

How does this commercial notion of ‘partnership’ seep into the political structures, and what happens if New Zealand becomes a Republic? All has been distorted beyond all reason and used as means of supporting claims by less than 15% of the population to enjoy unearned privileges at the expense of the remainder of the population, many of who, be it noted are descendants of the settlers whom the Crown was anxious to protect in entering into the Treaty. ‘Māori Rights to special treatment has become a moving target’. In 2014 the Supreme Court in litigation surrounding privatization of part of assets of some of the Crown held ‘Power Companies’. This whole process was rushed through parliament to allow the government to make goof an election promise. Various Māori interests challenged the governments right to sell shares in the power companies to the public for, among other reasons it would breach the ‘principles’ of the Treaty.

An order was sought preventing the sale until the publication of the Waitangi Tribunal’s final report on more general Māori claims to ‘Fresh Water’. The claimants lost in the High Court and there was no Court of Appeal. Claimants appeal went straight to Supreme Court, the claimants lost their case and the sale went ahead on the grounds that whatever Māori Rights to ‘Fresh Water’ the Government might decide to recognise those rights would not be prejudiced  by the proposed public float of shares. On the subject of treatment of people with Māori descent the judgement was larded with statements which were unnecessary to the decision of the dispute before the Court. It treated the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal as if it had the status of a Court of Law. IT DOES NOT

Generic finding is that Māori had rights- interests in their water bodies,. English equivalent in 1840 was ownership rights , and that such rights were confirmed, guaranteed and protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, save to the extent that here was an expectation in the Treaty that the waters would be shared with the incoming settlers. The Tribunal has recognise that the customary authority exercised in 1840 must be adapted to meet modern circumstances and the need for resources to be shared with ALL New Zealanders.

The Recommendations of the Treaty:- Are now elevated into binding legal principles.The Court of Appeals recognition stated a fundamental principle guiding the ‘interpretation of legislation which addresses issues involving the relationship of Māori with the Crown, must accordingly form the basis of the approach of NZ Courts to any subsequent legislation requiring that the Crown act consistently with Treaty ‘principles’. This judgement gives no support to narrow approaches to the meaning of such clauses. But recognises that in relation to ‘Fresh Water’ this conflicts with the Governments position set out in  the ‘Red Book’ (A manual giving guidance in relation to govt policy)

New Zealand law does not provide for ownership of water in rivers and lakes. The Crown has publicly acknowledges that Māori traditionally viewed a river, a lake as a single entity, have not separated that into beds, banks and water. That Māori consider a river, lake as a whole and can be owned by Iwi/Hapu in the sense of having ‘tribal authority’ over it.

2. However, whilst under NZ Law the bans and bed of a river can be legally owned, the water can NOT. This reflects the COMMON LAW position that water until contained (eg put in a tank or bottled) can not be owned by anybody. For this reason it is N OT possible for the Crown to offer Māori Claimants or any other claimants legal ownership of entire lake or river- including water- in a settlement.

The Court accepts this law- but records of the Crowns position is:-The Crown acknowledges that Māori have interests and rights in relation to particular waters. And they have not been prepared to negotiate for recognition of Māori property in waters or for their participation in the economic benefits obtained from the use of waters (as through royalties paid to them). But are prepared to encourage, facilitate joint ventures in the generation of electricity using water in which Māori are interested in the future. There is also preparation to negotiate co-governance and co-management arrangements under which Māori have a substantial say in the control of particular rivers through Treaty settlements (Eg Waikato Tainui-Commercial Arm Tainui Trust).

As well as the future of ‘Fresh Water’ management (Replacement of Resource Managements Act =3 New legislations), this is pursuant to a process known as ‘Fresh Start’. For ‘Fresh Water’ conducted by the Land and Water Reform. This has included extensive consultation with Iwi. Also parallel discussions between government ministers and the ‘Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group’. Mr. English summarised the Crown position as acknowledging that ‘Māori have rights and interests in water and geothermal resources”. He identified those interests being addressed on the ‘ongoing Waitangi Tribunal Inquiry’ and a number of ‘parallel mechanisms.

The Crown’s Position:- Is that any recognition must involve mechanisms that relate to ongoing use of those resources and may include decision making roles in relation to care, protection, use, access and allocation, and /or charges or rentals for us. In 2016-The Ministry for the Environment was responsible for progressing policy development around the issues of water with Iwi/Maori Leadership Group. The interference of the Courts is non democratic. Judge Willy states this is the business of an elected government not that of the Courts. The Determined Assault Goes On and On..On the Rule of Law which mandates in the matter of ‘Fresh Water’ allocation as in all areas of public policy, that the law apply equally to all regardless of colour, creed or status. (Law not Legality=Legislation). Clandestine discussions between government representatives and the Iwi Leaders Group- Yet NO person (people) will be permitted to own fresh water, have gone so far with virtually no comments by the media or wider public (Published 2016)

A well-intentioned attempt by the Courts in the 1980s to fill the lacuna created by the careless inclusion of the notion of “the principles of the Treaty’ in The State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 is open to apparently endless reinterpretation by activist Judges.  This is socially divisive and serves only to raise expectations where none should exist. It constitutes another skein in the rope of separatism which is choking off any chance of our remaining one people governed by one law for all.

As barristers of the High Court  they will of course keep in mind the statutory obligation imposed on them by S4(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 which provides:-

Fundamental obligations of lawyers: Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:- (a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand

REFERS TO:-An article published on 3rd April 2016 by Judge Anthony Willy is a Barrister & Solicitor, served as a Judge on four courts:- District, Environment, Tax & Valuation. He is a former lecturer in Law at Canterbury University. He acts as an Arbitrator, a Commercial Mediator, Resource Management Act Commissioner and is the Director of Several companies

Source of information https://www.nzcpr.com/water-the-rule-of-law-and-the-treaty/  )    Researched By Carol Sakey https://wakeupnz.org

The implementation of a co-governance structure between Crown (Govt) and Iwi prioritises the Water Working Group for the  Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan and Waikato District Blueprint Incorporated.

The Local Government Accord 2010 was made between the Minister of Local Govt and Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated as the trustee of the Waikato Raupatu River Trust (Waikato-Tainui)

The background of the Local Govt Accord came under the Waikato Raupata Claims Settlement Act 1995 which settled certain claims made to the Waitangi Tribunal by Robert Te Kotahi Mahuta of the Tainui Maori Trust Board and Ngaa Maree Toopu

By deed of settlement dated August 22nd 2008 Waikato-Tainui and the Crown (Govt) reached agreement on the terms of settlement to enter a new age of co-management over the Waikato River . However they agreed to a revised deed of settlement 17th December 2009

The Kiingitanga Accord was signed between Government and Waikato-Tainui 22nd August 2008 remains in force. The government have agreed to various accords to facilitate, advance so management a public private partnership with Waikato-Tainui. The commercial arm of Waikato-Tainui is Tainui Holdings.

The Kiingitanga Accord clause 9.4 deed of settlement and clause 3.1 further the enhancement of the relationship between Waikato-Tainui and the Govt.

3.2 and 3.3  Gives authority and rights of control over the Waikato River to Iwi

Local, Central Govt affirming partnerships with tangata whenua on agreed matters to achieve an integrated settlement pattern that enables, aligns infrastructure and funding, collaborates on growth management and cross boundary issues, effective new growth management tools and opportunities.

Providing thought leadership on key issues relevant to growth management affirming partnerships with between tangata whenua, central and local council, an integrated settlement plan to collaborate new growth management tools, collaborating on other initiatives including -promote sustainable resource use includes water, minerals, soil and energy

Collaborating on Growth Management, Waters, Transport, Land integration issues as to Spatial planning, inter-regional connections, Boundaryless planning, Implementation HA2. Te Ture Whaimana one place to enagage partners with Central, Local Govt

A vision that responds to the government Zero Emissions, a climate emergency, climate urgency, supporting a lower carbon economy through a more compact intensive urban form. The Tangata Whenua Vision for the Future Proof Strategy

Interesting information granted under OIA https://environment.govt.nz/assets/what-government-is-doing/fast-track/Ohinewai/18.14-compiled_comments_received_redacted.pdf

https://waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/PageFiles/15805/jMAs/2276497%20Tainui.pdf  Relationship agreement under the RMA. Waikato Raupata River Trust (Waikato-Tainui) and Waikato Regional Council (Co Management Agreement for Waikato River Related Lands)

https://waikatotainui.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2010-06-18-Local-Government-Accord.pdf  Minister of Local Government and Waikato Tainui. Local Government Accord 18th June 2010

,

The watering down of Universal Rights. The Corporate Capture of water and the influence on water policies by the UN /WEF.  We need to look beyond refocus our attentions beyond New Zealand to see what is really going on in our own country.

Water is essential to every part of our everyday life. Without water we would simply die.  However the private sector interests in the UN are seeking planning, succeeding in making a massive profit from water.  Private interests active within UN Nations. To treat water as a tradeable   commodification, turn it into a financial product for financially profitability.

This was pushed and promoted before the Rio+20 through a range of UN initiatives and partnerships with large businesses and corporations. Backed by governments and businesses groups to push market forces as a solution to water supplies. (Threatening the status of water and sanitation as a universal rights, as was recognised by the UN General Assembly resolution 64/292.

This means access to water would depend on the ability to actually pay for it, millions if not several billion people cannot afford to pay for water and there is nothing to stop water charges from increasing to a heightened level.  This will cause enormous problems.   Be aware of NZ Three Waters Reform, what is happening in New Zealand is happening in this globalized one script world of UN Agenda 2030 global development goals.

There is within history of societies standing up for their water rights. The Un was established as a place for defending the common good, human rights for ALL and our Common Future. Now the UN allows for private interests in the form of corporations.   This accelerated even further when the UN and World Economic Forum that represents Multistakeholderism joined forces (The strategic partnership of the UN and WEF June 13^th 2019) The Decade of Action 2020-2030. Leave no-one behind.

Hence the infiltration of corporate interests, corporate capture in the field of water policy embedded in the UN Agenda 2030 SDGs.   2.Global corporate influence has permeated the UN in a number of ways. The UN Secretary Generals Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB) 106. Was set up to galvanize global action on water and sanitation issues, central to the world eradicating poverty achieving UN Agenda 2030 SDGs

More than a quarter of its 23 members have direct links to private water companies, other advocate the liberalization and privatization of water resources. The include high profile figures eg President of Suez and president of Aquafed.(The International Federation of Private Water Operators).

Richard Torkelson, a finance specialist with experience in water privatization projects. Finncial working groups chaired by individual members  of financing working groups for ‘sustainable cost recovery for water delivery. More inter-dependency between water and the green economy

The Annual Water Forum speaks on behalf of water operators, businesses that go hand in hand with the UN. The CEO Water Mandate established as part of the UN Global Compact. (The UNs largest voluntary corporate accountability initiative) in 2007.  A  ‘unique public-private initiative designed to assist companies in the development, implementation, and disclosure of water sustainability policies and practices’.

Includes some of the planets biggest water polluters and abusers who use this corporate supported platform to promote their goals within the UN System.  Members companies eg; Nestles, Violia Water, Coca-Cola etc., As they call for  ‘Corporate Water Stewardship’ for mass profits and competitive advantage. This is what UN and UN Nation Member Govts call ‘Defending Water Rights’

Included initiatives are targeting farmers, throwing them under the tractor, the govt using the farmer as the whipping boy to reward Three 3.Waters Reform.. UN Agenda 2030 SDGS. A global leftist, socialist Marxist advertising marketing plan to place massive financial rewards in the pockets of promoters of multistakeholderism.  The intentional massive growing and promoting of companies within government around water policies.

The UN Global Compact enabling companies to secure huge advantages and massive profits at the publics expensive is legitimized as a CEO mandate. Promoting private market systems for water delivery and access- UN Global Compact. Voluntary non-biding in nature, UN Nation Govts and Large businesses, corporation commit to it.

These commitments are not checked or evaluated by independent experts. Problem is we never know these days who are the independent experts.   UN promote preferred standards and tools for UN Member States. Mandating corporations, large companies to mandate ‘Green’ activities, as they hide damaging impacts caused by large businesses, corporation under the UN / WEF Flag.

Govts that are suppose to regulate companies are instead hosting a massive initiative created by and for corporations, large businesses, this is not about public interests its about supreme power and always follow the money.

Cocoa-Cola, Unilever, Dow, etc., included in the formation of this UN/WEF strategic partnership.  Water has become an algorithm on the stock markets.  Dow and many other large companies, corporations have not fulfilled their obligations following the contamination of water. Coca-Cola has faced severe criticism for levels of water extraction in India, depleting water levels and causing problems for local communities.

Aquafed, the World Water Council and the Global Water Partnership. Partners must be non-profit organizations, this does not prevent umbrella organization that represent large companies from joining.

The content of the Third World Water Development Report. A former director of the World Water Council also presided over a private water consultancy firm.  Had direct access and strong influence over the highest level of the UN (CEO Water mandate- UNOP and UNSGAB- all coming under the direct authority of the UN Secretary General) on water management issues globally.  Corporate investment involvement in water policy management has increased within the UN this started in the 1990’s with the UN Seeking corporate funding.

The introduction of the UN Global Compact in 2000 marked a shift from a regulatory approach to a voluntary one. Member UN States have supported this shift and promoted it.  Rio +10 World Summit on Sustainable Development referred to the “world’s biggest trade fair” by UN Development Programme (UNDP) official Mark Malloch-Brown

The World Business Council for Sustainability Development (WBCSD) lobbied on behalf of the water industry for powerful members to include Veolia, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemicals etc., Theme ‘Water for the poor. The acceleration of public-private partnerships between Govts and large businesses-corporations. To facilitate private investment as a new strategy for delivery of efficient water and sanitation services. The UN/WEF deliberate plan. Had been well planned years before.

UN General Ban Ki Moon has praised business’ “integral role in delivering economic and social progress. The World Business Council noted  “succeeded in elevating water issues up the business agenda by increasing awareness among opinion leaders and decision makers.  The Green Economy- Corporate Capture of nature itself. Corporations putting a price on nature. Market based approached an introduction of water markets, pricing for water for agriculture and full cost pricing.  5.Access to water would no longer be a fundamental human right but water would become a profit driven business. This would be a direct attack on water justice and limit access to drinking water for millions if not  billions of people.

The Three Waters Reform look beyond New Zealand for the true facts it lies withing globalization. The UN World Toilet Day. The Three Waters Reform must be flushed down the loo. This is the crap work of those that seek supreme power and massive profits over  New Zealanders interests.  This is another perspective to what is going on beyond our focus levels within our country

THE UNITED NATIONS INTRODUCES WORLD TOILET DAY – In 2001, the World Toilet organisation established World Toilet Day and was declared an official UN day in 2013 AND THE CRAP CONTINUES TO BE DISHED OUT AS THE MULTITUDES WORLDWIDE BECOME BOGGED DOWN IN THE GLOBAL BOG BULLSHITE

Carol Sakey. WEBSITE – https:wakeupnz.org