The 2012 Māori Law and Politics Winners and Losers List

As we reach the end of 2012 it is time to look back and reflect on an eventful year in Māori Politics.  No one issue has dominated this year quite like the water rights and asset sales issue and those involved contribute in a large way to the make up of my winners and losers list for 2012.

The Winners

The Iwi Leaders Group

Without a doubt the big winners from 2012, the Iwi Leaders Group have established themselves as the go-to national Māori body for Crown engagement on national issues.  They have established a good working relationship with the Government over the past 18 months, and have clearly adopted the approach of working with Government to achieve progress for Māori rights over a more antagonistic approach.  While many question their standing and their beliefs (occasionally referred to disparagingly as the “Iwi Elite”), you cannot overlook the fact that this self-selected group comprise the elected leaders of many of the major Iwi in the country. With this comes a lot of weight, and a lot of influence with the Government.

Paula Bennett 

This may come as a surprise to many of my readers, but I consider Paula Bennett to be the Māori politician of the year.  You might question her kaupapa, but to survive the MSD security breach scandal and to oversee the most drastic reform to our welfare system since Jenny Shipley in the early 1990s is no easy task.  Add to that the ease with which she brushes aside the attacks from Jacinda Ardern in the House and you have a Māori politician who appears brilliant at her job.  With the remainder of the National Party Māori caucus either failing to fire (Henare, T) or making a complete fool of themselves (Parata, H), having one competent Māori in the National front bench, regardless of her politics, is something to celebrate.

Louisa Wall

Runner-up in the Māori politician of the year awards, Louisa Wall has shown herself to be the exemplary opposition M.P.  Having such a contentious bill pass its first reading with a massive majority is no easy task for an opposition M.P, what makes her all the more remarkable is the effort she  undertook to sit down with opponents, listen to their concerns, and quietly convince them of her case.  A future Minister of Māori Affairs, if not destined for higher honours.

Tariana Turia

It is hard to think of a Māori politician who has made as great an impact as Tariana Turia has over her 18 years in Parliament.  Her decision to cross the floor on the Foreshore and Seabed Act led to the formation of not one, but two Kaupapa Māori political parties and a renewed influence of Māori politicians in the House.  While Whanau Ora is a mere shadow of her initial dream, her efforts to curb smoking in Aotearoa have been immense and given even the big Tobacco companies something to worry about.  Her decision to retire marks the great cross roads in Māori politics.  Can the Māori Party survive without her, or will the independent Māori voice represented by the Māori Party and Te Mana be dragged back into the welcoming arms of the Labour Party?

The National Party

Yes, the National Party are one of the big winners of 2012.  While the partial asset sale programme has been delayed, a crushing victory in the High Court a few weeks ago means that it will take a miracle in January to bring about a final halt to their key policy platform.  Ructions within Ngāpuhi aside, they have also made great strides in settling historical grievance claims with Hapū and Iwi and an historic Tuhoe settlement is on the cards for early 2014 – a mere two years after it lay in tatters.

Rahui Katene

With the retirement of Tariana Turia in 2014, Rahui Katene looks set to succeed to her Te Tai Hauaurau electorate seat and, by extension, the co-leadership of the Māori Party.  Her work with the New Zealand Māori Council, and a renewed effort working at the ground level, has seen her restore the mana lost when she was defeated at last years election.  Expect to see and hear more from Rahui in 2013 as the Māori Party look to position her as Tariana’s natural successor.

The Losers

The New Zealand Māori Council

Fought a good fight before the Waitangi Tribunal, but ultimately failed in its quest to unite Te Ao Māori behind its cause and were dealt a massive defeat by Justice Young in the High Court.  While they have been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in 2013 it will be a tough ask convincing the Supreme Court to bring a halt to such an important economic policy for the Government.

Hekia Parata

Abysmal and embarrassing best sum up the performance of Hekia Parata in 2012.  Will be very lucky to survive the next Cabinet reshuffle.

Te Ururoa Flavell

While there is no word yet on what Pita Sharples plans to do post-2014, it is likely that with Tariana Turia stepping down, he will stay on for one more term to see in the transition.  It has proven to be a long wait for Te Ururoa Flavell to take over as the male co-leader of the Māori Party, a position he has coveted for a long time.  The question now is if, not when, he will succeed Pita.

Hone Harawira

It has been a quiet year for Hone, the only notable event I can recall is his arrest and even then no one really seemed to be too outraged about that.  It appears that the media, and public at large, only make room for one rebel-with-a-cause in New Zealand politics and this year that mantle has been taken up by Kim Dotcom.

The National/Act Government

Making the list again is the National Party, this time joined with its Government partner, ACT.  By all accounts the Government has handled the asset sales and water rights issue very poorly.  Instead of fronting the issue and putting in place a clear separation between the two issues, it found itself on the back foot with the seemingly misguide plan to remove the Treaty of Waitangi protections from the legislation setting up the mixed-ownership model.  Having the Waitangi Tribunal rule against you and face massive public criticism from Māori over its consultation, or lack thereof, in relation to the Shares Plus issue, were low points for this Government.

The Waitangi Tribunal

While it is no surprise that the Government ignored the Tribunal’s Stage I report on Freshwater Issues and Asset Sales, the fact that it did leaves no doubt about the role and status of the Waitangi Tribunal in national politics.

A World Indigenous Lawyers Conference: The Definitive View

I have promised many people over the course of the past two weeks that I will provide a review of the annual Te Hunga Roia Māori, Hui-a-Tau (The Māori Law Society Annual Conference) which also co-existed as a World Indigenous Lawyers Conference (WILC 2012), held at the University of Waikato in early September.  Not one to disappoint, here is the definitive review of the conference:

It was awesome. Come along next year and see for yourself!

Stay tuned, there is more to come over the coming days.

Parliament Discusses the “Shares-Plus” Consultation Hui

The following exchange took place in Parliament this afternoon in relation to the Government’s “Shares-Plus” consultation hui:

Question 3 : Wednesday 19 September 2012

3. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki)—to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he agree that “Consulting involves the statement of a proposal not yet finally decided upon, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses and then deciding what will be done”; if so, how do the Government’s consultation hui about the “shares plus” proposal align with this definition?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes; and totally. Is that succinct enough?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I come back to the honourable member, it might be, but it is not a good enough answer to a primary question. The Minister will now give a considered answer, because the Standing Orders actually require a Minister to give a constructive answer to a primary question—[Interruption]—I am on my feet; Ministers should just take a deep breath for a moment—where there are no words in that question that are in any way provocative. There are no such words in the question whatsoever. I do not believe that is an acceptable answer to the House. I accept that it is an answer, but it is not acceptable, given the Standing Orders, in that Ministers are expected to provide information in answering questions, and that answer did not provide any information.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: “Succinct” is obviously elastic.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The Minister will desist from that line of action. He will just treat the House with the respect it deserves.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON The quote draws on the finding of the Court of Appeal in 1992 in a case involving  Wellington International Airport, reported I think in [1993] 1 NZLR 671. What that decision confirms is that the party consulting can have a working plan in mind, and that is the position here. The Government has a preliminary view on “shares plus” and a working plan based on that preliminary view, but it has an open mind and is willing to change its mind if submissions are persuasive—succinct and to the point.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister support the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that “The Government has already said that such a shareholding would be unattractive, unnecessary, and unworkable …”; if so, what assurance can he give Māori that the Government is not entering into consultation with a  predetermined outcome in mind?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I can give that member and the House an assurance that the Government has an open mind. As I said, the Government has formed a preliminary view about “shares plus”, and that view is noted in its letters on the Treasury website, and it is in that context that the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments are to be understood. Again, the view is preliminary, and the Government is consulting in good faith in order to hear whether there are other views about “shares plus”.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with Māori lawyer Joshua Hitchcock that “In many respects the Government is treating this as a pro-forma exercise of consultation. It is merely ticking the boxes to satisfy the Court in the event of a challenge to the sale process that it has followed due process.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I certainly do not. It is not a matter of simply ticking boxes, and Governments have learnt a lot since the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1993. The Government has a preliminary view. It wants to test that view, and that is why the Deputy Prime Minister—and next week the Deputy Prime Minister and I—will be having these hui, one of which was very well attended in  Taupō today. The Government acknowledges it may not have thought of everything. It wants to hear other views, and then it will make a decision, and that is why we will have a consultation.

Hon Peter Dunne: Given the terse and succinct nature of the Minister’s answer, could he elaborate on what the Government’s preliminary view is?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes. The Government’s preliminary view, as set out on the website and in Treasury papers, and in the view of the Deputy Prime Minister, is that there are more minuses than pluses with “shares plus”. Take, for example, the suggestion that minority shareholders could have some say in the appointment of directors to the company, who would then act on the wishes of the minority shareholders. Well, in terms of company law, that is quite problematic because directors, once appointed, owe a duty to the company, not to the people who put them there.

Not the deliberate change in language.  The Deputy Prime Minister’s press release was rather unequivocal on the Government’s opinion of the “Shares-Plus” concept, to hear the Attorney General now speak of it as merely a preliminary view appears to be an attempt to fix an unintentional mistake.

 

 

 

“Shares-Plus” Consultation

Today marks the commencement of the Government’s consultation round on the “shares plus” concept raised in the Waitangi Tribunal’s interim report into the New Zealand Māori Council’s freshwater and state-owned enterprise claim.  I spoke briefly about the Government’s duty to consult on Newstalk ZB this morning, but time constraints resulted in a rather truncated analysis.

The Duty to Consult

The duty to consult is a long-standing principle of natural justice.  It is as extension of the common law right of Audi Alteram Partem (the right to be heard) and arose as Government decision-making extending beyond decisions primarily affecting individuals to decisions affecting larger numbers of people.

Initially, the Courts did not recognise any duty to consult implicit in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  In he landmark 1987 Lands case, the Court of Appeal defined consultation with Māori as being elusive and unworkable, although a precise reading of these comments can see that the nature of the consultation referring to by the Court was full consultation with Māori on all issues.  Framed as an all-encompassing duty to consult in all situations it is easy to see why such a duty can be elusive and unworkable.  The Court of Appeal would make this distinction clear in the Forests case (NZMC v Attorney-General [1989] 2 NZLR 142) when it held that the duty of good faith requires consultation on “truly major issues”

The Tribunal continued to develop the nature of the duty to consult during the 1990s and in the 2002 Ahu Moana: Agriculture and Marine Farming Report (Wai 953), noted that:

It is now well established that, in a matter of particular significance to Māori, the Crown has a duty to act reasonably, to make informed decisions, and to turn its mind to the future needs of Māori.  This cannot be done without consultation.  Full discussion must take place with Māori before the Crown makes any decisions on matters that may impinge upon the rangatiratanga of a tribe or hapū in relation to its taonga.

The duty is, however, not absolute.  The Court of Appeal, in Wellington International Airport, held that consultation does not mean agreement, nor does it envisage negotiations towards an agreement.  It does, however, require more than a prior notification that the Government intends to pursue a particular course of action.

For this discussion, the following principles can be distilled:

• The Government has a duty to consult with Māori on issues that impinge on the exercise of tino rangatiratanga;
• Mere notification of a planned course of action is not sufficient;
• Consultation is a genuine, open-minded, discussion between the Government and affected Māori; and
• Consultation does not mean agreement.

The Government’s “Shares-Plus” Consultation Process

There are some positives and some negatives of the current process being undertaken by the Government.

The positives:

• The Government has made an effort to go out and talk to those iwi directly affected by the planned sell down of the power companies.  The Hui are being held in the rohe where the hydroelectric dams exist and impact on the rangatiratanga of local iwi and hapū.
• The Government is engaging in this process with the Deputy Prime Minister, with facilitation to be shared by Sir Wira Gardiner and a chair appointed by local Māori.  A high-level discussion with the politicians making the decisions is more positive than one with officials only.

The negatives:

• Information on the hui was only released last night. I presume that the Government has made contact with the local hapū in advance, the short public notification leaves little time for those within the area to organise themselves and present a detailed argument for the adoption of the shares plus model.
• In many respects the Government is treating this as a pro-forma exercise of consultation. It is merely ticking the boxes to satisfy the Court in the event of a challenge to the sale process that it has followed due process.

This second negative could come back to haunt this Government.  While consultation does mean agreement, the Government cannot enter into consultation with a pre-determined outcome in mind.  The Press Release yesterday referred to the “shares-plus” concept as follows:

The Government has already said that such a shareholding would be unattractive, unnecessary and unworkable but now that the matter has been raised we will talk to affected Iwi about it.

The Tainui Boycott

Finally, news came through this morning that Waikato-Tainui will not be attending the first consultation hui in Hamilton this afternoon.  Tainui are clearly of the opinion that these issues require a national hui but their boycott is misguided for two reasons.  The first is that these hui are designed to be very specific in the issues that are discussed and a national hui is not an appropriate place to discuss the “shares-plus” concept.  Māori input in the operations and management of hydro-electric power companies should be limited to those iwi and hapū who are directly affected by the companies, i.e: those that have hydro damns on their waterways. A national hui with the Government on freshwater management is important and should be held, but that issue is completely different to the issue under discussion today. Tainui risk being shut out of this process completely.

That point leads directly onto the second problem with Tainui’s approach.  The High Court, in the recent decision of Greenpeace v Minister of Energy and Resources [2012] NZHC 1422, commented directly on this issue.  The Court noted that the Government held two consultation rounds and that the local hapū, Te Whanau-a-Apanui, did not make any submissions as to concern for its taonga.  The Court noted that Te Whanau-a-Apanui were provided with advance notice of the consultation and received an offer of a face-to-face discussion.  The hapū did not actively engage with the Ministry.  The Court stated that consultation and good faith is a two-way street, and requires the engagement of both parties.  The Court concluded by stating that:

If Te Whanau-a-Apanui had the concerns it now puts forward, on the basis of later opinion advice, it would have raised them then [at the time of consultation].  In choosing not to actively participate substantively or respond to the request to consult, it cannot complain now.

 

 

 

MLP News: Tuesday 4 September 2012

 

Plenty to update you on today whānau, so let’s get straight into it:

• The Government yesterday announced a delay to its flagship partial asset sales programme to consult with Māori over the “Shares Plus” concept floated by the Waitangi Tribunal.  I too am intrigued about this concept and am trying to learn as much as I can about this.  Keep an eye out for some analysis later in the month.  There are already some concerns being floated about the adequacy of the proposed consultation, especially with the possibility that the Māori Council will not be the first port of call for the Government. I have no problem with this.  The Government has a duty to consult with Hapū and Iwi and, as far as I am concerned, the Māori Council has no mandate to represent either.

• That aside, I am still confident that the Government will proceed with the asset sale programme in 2013.  As I have said before, it is a key policy platform of this Government, and the main objection from Iwi is that they are being shut out of the process, and would like compensation for the loss of water rights in the form of preferential shares.  No matter how much the left would like to spin this as the end of the sales programme, the claim was never about stopping it completely – rather it was a vehicle designed to ensure that our rights as Māori are recognised so that we are in a position to first, protect such rights and, second, to profit from such rights.

• Speaking of the Waitangi Tribunal, its recently released report on the freshwater and asset sales claim comes in at over 250 pages.  The short version is that a) Māori in 1840 held, and continue to hold today, some form of proprietary right over water; and b) the Government proceeding with the asset sales programme without making provision for redress with Māori over this issue would be a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Little surprise to see Rodney Hide come out and critique the report, saying that the Waitangi Tribunal is being influenced by myths and songs.  Once again illustrating the belief of many on the right that private property rights do not exist when they are Māori property rights.

• In a development which has potentially far-reaching implications for the Governments mandating policy in Northland, CYFS has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Ngā Puhi over child welfare. (Other Iwi have also signed).  Precisely which Ngā Puhi did the Government treat with on this occasion? The constituent Hapū who constitute the federation or the Runanga who claims to represent Ngā Puhi but is facing serious dissent from within the Rohe?  Yes, it was the latter.  While the aims of the Memorandum of Understanding are laudable, the Crown has acting in bad faith towards the large number of Ngā Puhi Hapū who do not recognise the mandate of the Runanga and are actively challenging this through the settlement process.

• Legal challenges over the Crafer Farms sale continues today, with news that the Māori Hapū who initiated the claim are getting set to appeal to the Supreme Court.  My advice would be to stop throwing good money after bad in this case.  The likelihood of overturning a Judicial Review decision by the High Court, and upheld by the Court of Appeal is not high.  And even if they win, all the Supreme Court can do is direct the Government Ministers to re-make their decision.

• And finally, the University of Waikato is this week holding the annual Māori Lawyers Conference, which doubles as the inaugural World Indigenous Lawyers Conference.  The organisers have put together a smashing programme, bringing together some of the greatest indigenous lawyers from New Zealand and around the world to speak on a wide range of indigenous issues.  I will be in attendance and will bring you updates of the conference as it progresses.  While we are on the topic of conferences, I am still in the process of compiling my notes of the workshops and research presented at the Legal Histories of the British Empire Conference I attended in Singapore back in July.  Keep an eye out  for my whākaro on this later in the year because there is some fascinating work being down in this area – work that provides real insights into the experience of Māori over the years, in the context of the British Empire.

 

 

 

 

My Law For All

One law for all asserts that the English Draft of the Treaty of Waitangi is determinative, despite never being signed by Māori.

One law for all seeks to divide Māori into loyal Māori and agitators (Achievers and Grievers), while at the same time complaining about our divided society.

One law for all frames their debate in the Western tradition, ignoring the fact that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a Māori text.

One law for all ignores settled principles of International law in relation to the interpretation of Treaties between sovereign nations.

One law for all asserts that Māori granted sovereignty to Queen Victoria in Te Tiriti o Waitangi despite the inability to understand the difference between sovereignty, kawanatanga and tino rangatiratanga.

One law for all believes that the property rights of every citizen should be respected, unless those property rights are held by Māori.

One law for all believers complain about Māori privilege yet are often unable to identify instances of such privilege.

One law for all believes that it is okay to sentence Māori to longer prison terms than non-Māori for similar crimes.

One law for all complains about Government money being wasted on Māori settlements and programmes, yet wants to waste Government money on a poorly worded referendum.

One law for all complains about the Treaty “Gravy-Train”, despite the $2bn paid out over the past 17 years representing approximately 0.5% of Government expenditure over this period, and amounting to less than the total amount of tax paid by Māori in the same period.*

None of this is one law for all.  It is colonisation and subjugation writ large.  Advocates do not want one law for all, they want their law for all.  There is a massive difference between the two. Unfortunately, proponents of one law for all are too intellectually challenged to see it.

*These figures are based on the following assumptions: Annual Government Expenditure of $30 billion per year, and 100,000 Māori paying approximately $1200 in tax on average each year.  Overall, the $2bn  paid out in Settlements represents a total of  $500 per person in New Zealand (or $30 per person per year).  Mr Ansell, I am prepared to write you a $500 cheque for your share of the cost of settling 170 years of historical grievance between an Indigenous People and their Colonial aggressors if you will agree to never again write about a subject which you clearly do not understand and willingly misrepresent.

Q&A: Māori Council Water Claim and Asset Sales

There has been a lot of discussion this past week with the Waitangi Tribunal Hearing into the New Zealand Māori Council’s claim regarding Māori rights to the fresh water resource and how this could potentially affect the progress of the Government’s plans to sell down its shareholdings in several State-Owned Power Companies. To save myself from repeating the same conversations over and over again, I am setting out a comprehensive question and answer article on this issue.

Do Māori have rights to the water resource?

According to Tikanga Māori, yes. Prior to 1840, Hapū exercise ownership and control over all land and resources within their territory. This included the waterways and the water resource that flowed through their territory.

But both National and Labour claims that no-one owns water?

Yes, that is the position according to British Common Law. No-one owns water, the Government has the right however to allocate use rights over the resource.

But, we are not in Great Britain.

That is a subtlety being ignored in this debate. I heard David Shearer on NewstalkZB yesterday stating that it has been the law for over 200 years that no-one has owned water. In Great Britain that may be the case, but 200 years ago Hapū owned all the land and resources in New Zealand.

So, why the disjuncture?

Simple. Both National and Labour, and the vast majority of commentators, are analysing this claim within a Western Legal Framework and ignoring the Indigenous framework. Tikanga Māori did not cease to exist in 1840 with the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it continues to exist today and is a much a part of our legal system as the British Common Law which was introduced by British Settlers in the 19th Century. Common Law, under its crudest definition, is simply the legal recognition of the customary practices of any given society. British Common Law has always been adaptable to local circumstances where ever it has been taken around the world.

Taking that into account, what is the legal position?

Simple, Māori continue to hold the rights over water that they did as at 6 February 1840, unless those rights have been confiscated by the Government. As far as I am aware, there is no New Zealand Statute which has confiscated the water resource from Hapū.

Will the Waitangi Tribunal hold as such?

This is a difficult question to answer. The Tribunal has of late shown more deference to the Government position on a number of issues, most recently in the Wai 262 Report where it failed to recognise a Māori proprietary interest in flora and fauna. This is in conflict with the 2000 Petroleum Report in which the Tribunal were willing to recognise a Māori proprietary interest in petroleum, at least up until the point it was confiscated by the Crown in the 1930s.

What should we then make of the Prime Minister’s Comments?

What John Key said was fairly innocuous, and have been blown completely out of proportion for political gain. With the exception of land held by State-Owned Enterprises and Crown-owned forestry land, any recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal are not binding on the Crown. This is as true today as it was in 1975 when the Treaty of Waitangi Act was passed and both Labour and National Government’s have ignored Waitangi Tribunal Reports over the decades – and will continue to do so.

Why are the Māori Party so angry then?

It does not hurt to every now and then express extreme displeasure with the Government as it shields you from the line of attack that you are simply the lap-dogs of the Government.

Would a Labour Government act any differently in relation to the Waitangi Tribunal?

The previous Labour Government ignored the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal in both their Petroleum Report and the Foreshore and Seabed Urgent Hearing Report. I have little confidence that the next Labour-Government will start to implement the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal in their entirety.

Shouldn’t the Government at least engage with the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal?

Yes.

But?

In this case, it won’t.

What does this mean for Māori water rights?

The NZ Māori Council have done Māori a great disservice in bringing this particular claim and linking in to the partial sale of State-Owned Enterprises in the manner that it has. By linking this claim to the keystone legislation of the Government’s second term, it was always doomed to fail. The Māori Council is a body desperately searching for relevance amidst the rise of independent Māori political bodies and the more representative Iwi Leaders Group. It no longer speaks with the authority of Te Ao Māori behind it, instead it appears to have been captured by the specific interests of Titewhai Harawira and Donna Hall. It speaks volumes about the strength of their case that the Iwi Leaders Group, a body comprised of the elected leaders of Iwi throughout Aotearoa, refused to support the claim and instead preferred to continue negotiation with the Crown around water rights.

Why was it a mistake to bring the claim?

Because this is an issue of far greater importance than the sale of a few shares in a few power companies. Companies which take water from one side of a river, feed it through turbines, and send it back out into the river. Power generation occurs on a handful of rivers belonging to a handful of Hapū. Yet, every single Hapū in the country has at least one river flowing through their territory and because the issue of water rights has been tied up so intrinsically with the partial asset sales programme, the Government is going to throw out all the proverbial bath (or in this case, river) water, and with it the claim of every Hapū in the country to water rights in their territory, as it seeks to advance this core plank of its election manifesto.

Asset Sales are a bad thing and need to be stopped, so are the Māori Council therefore justified in their action?

Personally, I have no objection to the partial sale of shares in State-Owned Enterprises. Many others, including large numbers of Māori are opposed to the sales. But selling a few shares does not change the nature of the operation of the power companies using water for generation. The Government remains the majority shareholder of the companies, the use of water and other environmental activity remains subject to the Resource Management Act, and the Government is still under the statutory obligation to adhere to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

What lessons should we learn from this?

The main lesson is that we need to start thinking a bit more strategically about the battles that we fight and the cases that we take to either the Waitangi Tribunal or the Courts. The NZ Māori Council were incredibly effective in the 1980s because they made smart decisions and took the right case to the appropriate forum. The Lands Case succeeded because it was a strongly argued case put before the Court of Appeal. If you want to stop something, then forget about using the Waitangi Tribunal to achieve that. It’s best role is that of discussing the impacts of policy on Māori, not as a tool to prevent Government action. If you want to stop the partial asset sales process, then prepare a strong case and take it to the High Court.