Connecting Diverse Communities Report on 2007/08 public engagement A report on 15 meetings held around New Zealand to discuss diversity and social cohesion and responses to a written questionnaire August 2008. The views documented in this report are the views of the people who attended the Connecting Diverse Communities meetings held around the country. They are not the views of the Government, government agencies, Ministry of Social Development, Office of Ethnic Affairs or their staff. The purpose of the report being the summarising of the findings of the ‘Connecting Diverse Communities’ public engagement process. This process involved fifteen meetings held throughout New Zealand between August and November 2007, followed by a written survey that was sent to relevant organisations and available publicly. The majority of this report summarises the feedback received at the community meetings, while the responses from the survey can be found at Appendix 4. The meetings were organised by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the Office of Ethnic Affairs (OEA) and were held in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Napier, Palmerston North, New Plymouth, Wellington, Nelson, Christchurch and Dunedin. More than 500 people attended the meetings in total. The key objectives of the meetings were: • to engage with representatives of diverse communities around New Zealand (including ethnic and religious communities, iwi/hapū/Māori, Pākehā and Pacific Island peoples

Including in the content of this report was the following:-

Responses were subsequently transcribed and sent back to the meeting scribes for further comment and corrections, before being collated, analysed and used as material for this report. On four occasions, ie the Auckland Youth meeting, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Intersex (GLBTI) meeting and the two Otara meetings. To hold dialogues with different peoples, to continue to communicate in times of celebration and adversity, and to influence others to be comfortable with diversity. We need to have more ‘conversations’ about social cohesion. • The media has an important role in this process. Take advantage of and celebrate diversity.  The Treaty of Waitangi as a foundation for intercultural respect. The role of schools in preparing young children to accept diversity as a ‘norm’ was often raised in the Connecting Diverse Communities meetings. Responses from the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Intersex (GLBTI) meeting…The GBLTI meeting, held in Wellington, was designed to allow participants to respond in a safe environment where their range of views was more likely to be expressed than if they were part of the local meetings. The questions were worded slightly differently and the responses are recorded below

Question 1.1 What do you think would help you create, maintain or strengthen your sense of ethnic, cultural and/or religious identity and community belonging in New Zealand? Question 1.2 What role can government play to support this?. Participants responded to the notion of diversity, identity and community by including sexual orientation and gender identity rather than just focusing on matters of ethnicity, culture or religion. Critical issues for the GLBTI community revolve around increasing their visibility and the levels of tolerance of GLBTI people in all communities. Two clear positions were articulated by participants in answer to the above two questions. They were: • While the local and central governments have a powerful influencing role in protecting GLBTI communities, local community groups have much more capacity to practise behaviours and attitudes that lead to GLBTI safety. Therefore, creating, maintaining or strengthening one’s sense of ethnic, cultural and/or religious identity and community belonging in New Zealand greatly relies on local community groups being in a position to deal with issues of sexual orientation and gender identity first. This requires a sustained and far-reaching education campaign that starts with schools but involves all members of local communities, including parents and local leaders

Government can play a critical role by increasing GLBTI visibility, rights and safety in the following ways: o Supporting the rights of GLBTI by enforcing their application in new policy development (such as developing ‘anti-hate-speech’ legislation), in current legislation (as expressed in the Human Rights Act) and in processes (such as GLBTI individuals being able to be counted in census data, household and crime and safety surveys). o Establishing a Ministry to deal with GLBTI issues, or at least a Ministerial portfolio for that purpose. o Establishing and funding a non-governmental body such as a Diversity Council to represent all minority groups. Such a body would be able to deal more readily with issues specific to GBLTI, such as assumptions about how different ethnicities respond to the GBLTI communities, their relationship to fundamentalist religious groups, or policy development involving their communities. o Resourcing, enforcing and monitoring programmes that support diversity (including sexual diversity) in schools (for example, through School Charters or by addressing cultural safety issues in curriculum delivery); in the media (for example, through TV and Radio Charters, or programming such as Māori TV’s Takataapui programme); and in the health sector (for example, through the Nursing Council’s cultural competencies – not just during training but also via in-service professional development – or by showing same-sex couples in health promotion TV ads). o Supporting student-led diversity initiatives in schools (e.g. against racism or gender bias).

There are LGBTI groups in schools that focus on sexual and gender diversity issues through the ‘School’s Out’ forum. However, these groups need more ethnically diverse input. o Acknowledging that GLBTI people face discriminatory practices from members of mainstream ‘straight’ society, including parents, schools, employers and employees – no matter what ethnicity or socio-economic circumstance they are in. Government has a role in lessening tension by addressing stereotypical attitudes and behaviour, such as refuting the perception that all LGBTQ people practise predatory behaviour or want to ‘recruit’ young people in schools, and by encouraging inclusive behaviour. o Establishing role modelling processes in government agencies so that there is an increasing awareness of cultural difference and safety in workplaces and in the health sector. o Supporting the development of more open leadership and providing more counselling information services for LGBTI people in cultural and ethnic communities. o Supporting celebrations like the Gay and Lesbian Fair ‘The Big Gay Out’ and the Hero Parade, that create awareness of LGBTQ issues and carve a space for the LGBTI community within the wider community, by funding or underwriting them in the same way that they might support ethnic festival development. o Supporting festivals that celebrate other cultures. Film festivals in particular, encourage the coming together of diverse groups (for example, the LGBTQ ‘Out Takes’ film festival).

LGBTI meeting responses Group question 2 was modified slightly to reflect the needs of the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transexual and Intersex participants. While many of the above summary responses apply to the GLBTI group, the responses below reflect other insights specific to these participants. Specific responses have been put into table form below

Question 2.1 – How well do you think people from diverse ethnic, religious and cultural communities interact with each other, for example in your neighbourhood, in GLBTI spaces, at work or through school? Question 2.2 – What do you think are the barriers to people mixing?

Question 2.2 Barriers include:

• The lack of identifiable spaces where it is safe to be LGBTQ+1.

• The visibility of LGBTQ+1 members is met by fearful and negative attitudes, non-acceptance and ignorance

• Migrants are not aware that New Zealand legally protects minority groups such as members of the LGBTQ+1 community

• There is a lack of opportunity to meet and discuss LGBTQ+I issues.

• There is a lack of opportunity to work on common tasks. • People don’t know how to discuss LGBTQ+1 matters in a frank, open and informative way. When there is an opportunity to do so, people do not recognise common ground as a starting point for interacting. The increasing pace of social change makes it harder to get to know people as people first

• Attacks on LGBTQ members by fundamentalist religious groups are a barrier. Some religious leaders want to eliminate GLBTI people altogether. The increasing diversity of the population and resulting increase in fundamentalism is a threat to GLBTI communities. Newcomers need to know New Zealand is first and foremost a secular country where there is freedom to worship.

• Marches and protests against LGBTQ communities.

• The use of derogatory terms and hate speech against LGBTQ communities.

• That the focus on sexual and gender diversity in schools tends to be Pākehā-dominated and needs to be more inclusive of other ethnic groups

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/connecting-diverse-communities/cdc-public-engagement-2007.pdf

ARTICLE LOS ANGELES TIMES ‘AFTER BOTCHED SURGERY HE WAS RAISED AS A GIRL ‘GENDER EXPERIMENT’ (David Reimer Aged 38 years) Author Elaine Woo 13^th May 2004. David Reimer, the Canadian man raised as a girl for most of the first 14 years of his life in a highly touted medical experiment that seemed to resolve the debate over the cultural and biological determinants of gender, has died at 38. He committed suicide May 4 in his hometown of Winnipeg, Canada. At 8 months of age, Reimer became the unwitting subject of “sex reassignment,” a treatment method embraced by his parents after his penis was all but obliterated during a botched circumcision. The American doctor whose advice they sought recommended that their son be castrated, given hormone treatments and raised as a girl. The physician, Dr. John Money, supervised the case for several years and eventually wrote a paper declaring the success of the gender conversion. Known as the “John/Joan” case, it was widely publicized and gave credence to arguments presented in the 1970s by feminists and others that humans are sexually neutral at birth and that sex roles are largely the product of social conditioning. But, in fact, the gender conversion was far from successful. Money’s experiment was a disaster for Reimer that created psychological scars he ultimately could not overcome. Reimer’s story was told in the 2000 book “As Nature Made Him,” by journalist John Colapinto. Reimer said he cooperated with Colapinto in the hope that other children could be spared the miseries he experienced.

Reimer was born on Aug. 22, 1965, 12 minutes before his identical twin brother. His working-class parents named him Bruce and his brother Brian. Both babies were healthy and developed normally until they were seven months old, when they were discovered to have a condition called phimosis, a defect in the foreskin of the penis that makes urination difficult. The Reimers were told that the problem was easily remedied with circumcision. During the procedure at the hospital, a doctor who did not usually perform such operations was assigned to the Reimer babies. She chose to use an electric cautery machine with a sharp cutting needle to sever the foreskin. But something went terribly awry. Exactly where the error lay — in the machine, or in the user — was never determined. What quickly became clear was that baby Bruce had been irreparably maimed. (The doctors decided not to try the operation on his brother Brian, whose phimosis later disappeared without treatment.). The Reimers were distraught. Told that phallic reconstruction was a crude option that would never result in a fully functioning organ, they were without hope until one Sunday evening after the twins’ first birthday when they happened to tune in to an interview with Money on a television talk show. He was describing his successes at Johns Hopkins University in changing the sex of babies born with incomplete or ambiguous genitalia. He said that through surgeries and hormone treatments he could turn a child into whichever sex seemed most appropriate, and that such reassignments were resulting in happy, healthy children.

Money, a Harvard-educated native of New Zealand, had already established a reputation as one of the world’s leading sex researchers, known for his brilliance and his arrogance. He was credited with coining the term “gender identity” to describe a person’s innate sense of maleness or femaleness. The Reimers went to see Money, who with unwavering confidence told them that raising Bruce as a girl was the best course, and that they should never say a word to the child about ever having been a boy. About six weeks before his second birthday, Bruce became Brenda on an operating table at Johns Hopkins. After bringing the toddler home, the Reimers began dressing her like a girl and giving her dolls. She was, on the surface, an appealing little girl, with round cheeks, curly locks and large, brown eyes. But Brenda rebelled at her imposed identity from the start. She tried to rip off the first dress that her mother sewed for her. When she saw her father shaving, she wanted a razor, too. She favored toy guns and trucks over sewing machines and Barbies. When she fought with her brother, it was clear that she was the stronger of the two. “I recognized Brenda as my sister,” Brian was quoted as saying in the Colapinto book. “But she never, ever acted the part.” Money continued to perform annual checkups on Brenda, and despite the signs that Brenda was rejecting her feminized self, Money insisted that continuing on the path to womanhood was the proper course for her. In 1972, when Brenda was 7, Money touted his success with her gender conversion in a speech to the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., and in the book, “Man & Woman, Boy & Girl,” released the same day. The scientists in attendance recognized the significance of the case as readily as Money had years earlier. Because Brenda had an identical male twin, they offered the perfect test of the theory that gender is learned, not inborn. Money already was the darling of radical feminists such as Kate Millett, who in her bestselling “Sexual Politics” two years earlier had cited Money’s writings from the 1950s as proof that “psychosexual personality is therefore postnatal and learned.”

Now his “success” was written up in Time magazine, which, in reporting on his speech, wrote that Money’s research provided “strong support for a major contention of women’s liberationists: that conventional patterns of masculine and feminine behavior can be altered.” In other words, nurture had trumped nature. The Reimer case quickly was written into textbooks on pediatrics, psychiatry and sexuality as evidence that anatomy was not destiny, that sexual identity was far more malleable than anyone had thought possible. Money’s claims provided powerful support for those seeking medical or social remedies for gender-based ills. What went unreported until decades later, however, was that Money’s experiment actually proved the opposite — the immutability of one’s inborn sense of gender. Money stopped commenting publicly on the case in 1980 and never acknowledged that the experiment was anything but a glowing success. Dr. Milton Diamond, a sexologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, had long been suspicious of Money’s claims. He was finally able to locate Reimer through a Canadian psychiatrist who had seen Reimer as a patient.

In an article published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine in 1997, Diamond and the psychiatrist, Dr. H. Keith Sigmundson, showed how Brenda had steadily rejected her reassignment from male to female. In early adolescence, she refused to continue receiving the estrogen treatments that had helped her grow breasts. She stopped seeing Money. Finally, at 14, she refused to continue living as a girl. When she confronted her father, he broke down in tears and told her what had happened shortly after her birth. Instead of being angry, Brenda was relieved. “For the first time everything made sense,” the article by Diamond and Sigmundson quoted her as saying, “and I understood who and what I was.” She decided to reclaim the identity she was born with by taking male hormone shots and undergoing a double mastectomy and operations to build a penis with skin grafts. She changed her name to David, identifying with the Biblical David who fought Goliath. “It reminded me,” David told Colapinto, “of courage.”

David developed into a muscular, handsome young man. But the grueling surgeries spun him into periods of depression and twice caused him to attempt suicide. He spent months living alone in a cabin in the woods. At 22, he prayed to God for the first time in his life, begging for the chance to be a husband and father. When he was 25, he married a woman and adopted her three children. Diamond reported that while the phallic reconstruction was only partially successful, David could have sexual intercourse and experience orgasm. He worked in a slaughterhouse and said he was happily adjusted to life as a man. In interviews for Colapinto’s book, however, he acknowledged a deep well of wrenching anger that would never go away.  “You can never escape the past,” he told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 2000. “I had parts of my body cut away and thrown in a wastepaper basket. I’ve had my mind ripped away.” His life began to unravel with the suicide of his brother two years ago. Brian Reimer had been treated for schizophrenia and took his life by overdosing on drugs. David visited his brother’s grave every day. He lost his job, separated from his wife and was deeply in debt after a failed investment. He is survived by his wife, Jane; his parents, and his children.

Despite the hardships he experienced, he said he did not blame his parents for their decision to raise him as a girl. As he told Colapinto, “Mom and Dad wanted this to work so I’d be happy. That’s every parent’s dream for their child. But I couldn’t be happy for my parents. I had to be happy for me. You can’t be something that you’re not. You have to be you.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-13-me-reimer13-story.html

Irrespective of who owns the land over which the water flows, under common law and statute law, water is owned by no-one. There is absolutely no legal, moral or common sense justification for any Iwi/Māori to claim freshwater. The legal situation is that no-one owns water, no-one ever has. Reference was made to common law and the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 and the Resource Management Act 1991. (Canterbury University Law lecturer David Round

Water was never regarded by the common law as a commodity. The courts held that a land owner had no right to the ownership of water which either flows through or percolates within the land. In this way the courts recognised water like air is not only vital to the survival of all species on the planet but is something in which humanity has no hand in creating. It therefore like air occupies a unique status in the eyes of common law, it cannot be owned by anybody. Irrespective of the law.

Some Iwi/Maori have continued to claim ownership of freshwater. But since successive govts and courts have consistently rejected their opportunist claims, they have now turned their attention to the ‘control’ of water. (Former Judge Anthony Willy) “Water was never regarded by common law as a commodity”. Former Law Lecturer, Judge Anthony Willy, agrees: “Water was never regarded by the common law as a commodity

The truth is that no form of constitutional govt of itself can guarantee our civil liberties, but the intersection of the Rule of Law as administered by the Courts and the democratic process offers the best protection known to history- the enablement of tribal groups to gain control of freshwater will therefore not only entrench separatism in NZ but it will undermine the Rule of Law. (Judge Anthony Willy) 

Under British common law, naturally flowing freshwater is not owned by anyone, but is treated as a public good. 

NZ Bill Of Rights (Private Property Rights) Section 11A, “Right to own property”, inserted by clause 4, states: “Everyone has the right to own property, whether alone or in association with others.” Section 11B, “Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property”, inserted by clause 4, states: “No person is to be deprived of the use or enjoyment of that person’s . 

NZ Bill Of Rights has been traditionally contained in Common Law in ‘The Judges Rules 1912 now set in 23 (1)b of The NZ Bill Of Rights 1991.

Worrying implications for ‘property rights’ exists. Govt being forceful in pushing through the Three Waters Reform, essentially an attack on property rights, a dark day for democracy in New Zealand, and community groups, voices have certainly made their voices heard as to their opposition of this robbery of communities infrastructure assets. The govt has been extremely busy working with Iwi Freshwater Group, the water industry and local councils. The Govt is going ahead with what they describe as opportunities for Iwi in the Water Entities Act, which establishes  new water services from July 2024. Govt providing for Iwi interest, rights is particularly focussed on water service delivery. The Three Waters Reform Review 2017-2020 documents the processes, engagement Govt have had with Iwi in the Three Waters Reforms. The 2020-21 reports stated “There has been many workshops, gatherings up and down the country”. This process of engagement with Iwi with govt and industry is documented in the Three Water Reform Review 2017-2020 and the Three Water Reform Programme  2020-2021. There has been many workshops, gatherings up and down the country.  Scoop News reported 21^st Feb 2023 ‘Three Waters Judgement Accepts No Confiscation of Assets with NO Compensation. The Timaru, Waimakiri and Whangarei Council  asked the High Court for declarations on the ‘rights and interests’ that property ownerships entails. Justice Mallon responded  “I accept that Three Waters Reform involves a form of expropriation for which compensation could be given, but whether it is or not is up to Parliament”

It was confirmed that the government’s Three Waters plan, plans to take away water infrastructure paid for by communities, for the government to serve its own purpose. Claiming privately owned property against the wishes of the owners of those assets. However the decision for compensation to be paid to the asset holders is one to be made by Parliament. Judgement was declines specific declaration sought by the councils, highlighted that “there is no acknowledgement from the Government that this confiscation was taking place and that a deliberate decision was made not to compensate communities for confiscation”. Judge Mallon stated that the documents do not directly acknowledge that local councils will lose ownership that they presently hold, nor that councils ability to control the use of assets will be materially diluted through the WSE Governance Structure. Nor that local democratic accountability for the provision of Three Water services in local communities is essentially lost. However, it does not follow that the Govt, and in return Parliament is unaware of this. The proposals are directed to a new model for delivering Three Waters, a significant Three Waters infrastructure challenge, The govt has proposed a funding package but has deliberately decided that this is not intended to compensate local councils for the value of infrastructure assets, not communities”. Hence the govt can remove local democratic rights, they are not held accountable and have misled the public of NZ of the true ramifications of this legislation. Those Council members who sought the High Court hearing stated  “As owners of this critical infrastructure on behalf of our communities we are now demanding that any future changes to Three Waters policy setting respect these basic rights in property owning democracy. This is the govt deliberately undermining basic property rights. The NZ Bill Of Rights (Private Property). The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the protection of private property rights in NZ under the NZ Bill Of Rights Act 1991. The Property Rights System establishes and maintains the integrity of title to estates and interests in land in NZ.

This is the government seeking to undermine basic property rights. The NZ Bill Of Rights (Private Property) The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the protection of private property rights in New Zealand under the NZ Bill Of Rights Act. Property Rights system. This system establishes and maintains the integrity of title to estates and interests in land in New Zealand. Article written by Dr Muriel Newman NZ Centre for Political Research 24/1/2016. This is a policy think tank. Dr Newman has previously been a MP and a former Chamber Of Commerce President in Business and Education. The article made the following points. ‘Iwi Leaders and Govt had agreed on a deadline to sort out Maori/Iwi Interests in freshwater by Waitangi Day 2016. (Report RNZ 5/2/2015). National Party planned to introduce Maori/Iwi interests in freshwater. NZCPR campaigned against this. Govt accused them of misinformation.

Article Grey Power Magazine authored by Cabinet Minister & MP for Tauranga Simon Bridges “I have been approached by a number of constituents regarding the control, ownership of NZ’s freshwater. He said,” there appears to be some misinformation”, but he wanted to clarify the matter, saying the National govt has always clearly stated “no-one owns the water”. He added “However the govt is working with the Land and Water Forum, this includes stakeholders including Iwi to develop a common direction for freshwater management in NZ. Race based interests as to management, allocation of fresh water resources in NZ”. But Bridges ensured Grey Power readers there were no plans to give control or ownership of our country’s lakes and rivers to Iwi”. Irrespective of who owns the land over which the water flows, under common law and stature water is owned by no-one. There is absolutely no legal, moral or common sense justification for any Iwi/Maori to claim freshwater. The legal situation is that no-one owns water, no-one ever has. Reference was made to common law and the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 and the Resource Management Act 1991. (Canterbury University Law lecturer David Round).

Water was never regarded by the common law as a commodity. The courts held that a land owner had no right to the ownership of water which either flows through or percolates within the land. In this way the courts recognised water like air is not only vital to the survival of all species on the planet but is something in which humanity has no hand in creating. It therefore like air occupies a unique status in the eyes of common law, it cannot be owned b y anybody. Irrespective of the law. Some Iwi/Maori have continued to claim ownership of freshwater. But since successive govts and courts have consistently rejected their opportunist claims, they have now turned their attention to the ‘control’ of water. (Former Judge Anthony Willy) “Water was never regarded by common law as a commodity”. Reference: Former Law Lecturer, Judge Anthony Willy, agrees: “Water was never regarded by the common law as a commodity”.

NZ Herald October 2016) During the Labour Govts 3^rd term in office, leaders of some of the country’s most powerful tribes sought Maori control of water. Labour Govt stated that “Water is not owned, but is controlled, managed by the Crown for ALL New Zealanders”. Tribes were under the impression that the Labour Govt were considering privatisation of water rights as part of a water management reform programme. The tribal leaders considered if such a property right was created, they had a claim to it under the Treaty since they had gained a lucrative $170 million fishing settlement, Fishing Quota created as a property right, many tribes received substantial settlement of quota fishing company shares and cash. They believed a water settlement would dwarf the fisheries settlement & with the Ministry for the Environment estimating the total value of fresh water to NZ is now worth almost $35 billion (2016). And Iwi demands continued, and Iwi voices that claimed they owned the water in NZ.

Nationals concession to tribal demands for freshwater was signalled during the partial privatisation of the State owned power companies in 2012. The Crowns Counsel stated that the power company sale would not precent the govt from recognising the rights and interests of Iwi in freshwater”, and even suggested the creation of new ‘economic rights over water’ in the form of a ‘levy or royalty”.  Emphasizing, recognising Maori/Iwi Rights may include decision making in relation to care, protection, use, access and allocation, and/or charges or rentals for water. All this information being evidential yet NZCPT was accused of misinformation.. “The rule of law means simply that we shall be governed solely by the law properly enacted after due process, not by arbitrary whim of any person or group. It is a point of due process ‘a the way in which laws come into being’. That the Rule of Laws intersects with democracy, which together are the guarantors of our civic rights. It is crucial and unbridgeable divide between the rule at whim of the despot and his or her cronies and rule by law that we imperil when we permit exceptions no matter how well intentioned. Such an exception sought by the minority of the population to corner rights to fresh water is a classic example of a derogation of the Rule of Law simply because it gives governance over a crucial public good to a small and unelected group to the detriment of the majority”.  The truth is that no form of constitutional govt of itself can guarantee our civil liberties, but the intersection of the Rule of Law as administered by the Courts and the democratic process offers the best protection known to history- the enablement of tribal groups to gain control of freshwater will therefore not only entrench separatism in NZ but it will undermine the Rule of Law. (Judge Anthony Willy)

References were made to -Gisborne Council had already established a joint resource consenting authority with Ngati Porou for control  of freshwater in their region. (prior to Oct 2016). Minister for the Environment Nick Smith was already committed to preferential access for Iwi in catchment based processes, stating he intended to influence councils by issuing requirement or guidelines to regional councils when choosing or implementing allocation approaches or reviews of existing allocations.  National caved in to Maori Council demands for rights to freshwater. On the verge of water rights in perpetuity to tribal interest, but required councils to involve local Iwi/Maori tribes in the management, allocation, control of fresh water in their regions (prior to 2016). There is no form of constitutional govt of itself can guarantee our civil liberties, but the intersection of the Rule of Law as administered by the Courts and the democratic process offers the best protection known to history- the enablement of tribal groups to gain control of freshwater will therefore not only entrench separatism in NZ but it will undermine the Rule of Law. (Judge Anthony Willy). Under British common law, naturally flowing freshwater is not owned by anyone, but is treated as a public good.

The NZ Bill Of Rights (Private Property Rights) Section 11A, “Right to own property”, inserted by clause 4, states: “Everyone has the right to own property, whether alone or in association with others.” Section 11B, “Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property”, inserted by clause 4, states: “No person is to be deprived of the use or enjoyment of that person’s .  NZ Bill Of Rights is traditionally contained in Common Law ‘The Judges Rules 1912 now set in 23 (1)b of NZ Bill Of Rights. – NZ Bill Of Rights has been traditionally contained in Common Law in ‘The Judges Rules 1912 now set in 23 (1)b of The NZ Bill Of Rights 1991.

https://wakeupnz.org

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2302/S00114/three-waters-judgement-accepts-confiscation-of-assets-with-no-compensation.htm

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2204/S00151/worrying-implication-for-property-rights-as-government-forces-through-three-waters-reform.htm

https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-Programme

https://www.environmentguide.org.nz/issues/freshwater/freshwater-management-framework/ownership-of-freshwater/