sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Tribunal recommends big Govt payout over Tongariro power scheme, now owned by Genesis Energy; English says float not in danger

Bonds
Tribunal recommends big Govt payout over Tongariro power scheme, now owned by Genesis Energy; English says float not in danger

By Bernard Hickey

The Waitangi Tribunal has issued a final 1,360 page report on 41 Treaty claims over the Tongariro, Ngauruhoe and Ruapehu mountains that has recommended the Government negotiate "significant compensation" with iwi and hapu over the land and in particular the Tongariro hydro-electric electricity scheme, which is now owned by Genesis Energy.

Finance Minister Bill English told reporters before National's Parliamentary Caucus meeting the Government was already in negotiations with iwi over a settlement and he did not think it would affect the partial privatisation and float of Genesis Energy.

He said a court ruling over water rights for Mighty River Power had already set the precedent that meant the float would not be affected.

The Waitangi Tribunal inquiry panel, which included Chief Judge Wilson Isaac, Sir Doug Kidd, Dr Monty Soutar and Sir Hirini Mead, said the creation and management of the Tongariro National Park and the establishment and operation of the Tongariro power scheme had delivered little for Maori.

"The Crown did not provide compensation for lands compulsorily acquired for Tongariro National Park. Nor did it consult with Whanganui iwi over the establishment and subsequent governance of the park, despite its awareness of their interests in the southern area of the park," the Panel said.

"Subsequently, in managing the park the Crown made no clear provision in its policy and legislation for nga iwi o te kahui maunga to exercise rangatiratanga over their taonga. The Tribunal concluded that the Crown had failed to honour either the Treaty partnership or the partnership offered by Te Heuheu," it said.

"The Tribunal recommended that the Crown honour its obligations and restore the partnership intended by the 1887 tuku of the mountains. It recommended that Tongariro National Park should be made inalienable and held jointly by the Crown and ngā iwi o te kāhui maunga under a new Treaty of Waitangi title; and that the park be transferred from Department of Conservation control to co-management by a statutory authority comprising Crown and iwi representative."

The Tribunal said the other main issue for the inquiry was the Tongariro power development scheme.

'Significant treaty breach'

"For nga iwi o te kahui maunga, the Tribunal found, their waterways are taonga, ownership and control of which are held in accordance with tikanga Maori and have never been relinquished," it said, adding they retained residual proprietary rights on the waterways of the district and the right to develop them.

The Tribunal found that when the Crown set up the scheme it met with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, but did not consult the Lake Rotoaira trustees or Whanganui iwi. 

"The Crown’s 1972 agreement with the trustees, which denied the lake’s owners any commercial benefit, was itself a significant Treaty breach. In operation, the scheme’s impact on lakes and rivers has resulted in a loss of water quality, habitat, and food and fish resources, particularly at Lake Rotoaira," it said.

"The Tribunal found that the Crown did not compensate the owners for the detrimental impacts of the scheme or for the use of Lake Rotoaira for hydropower storage. It recommended significant compensation to remedy these breaches and that the residual property rights of nga iwi o te kahui maunga in their waterways be given due recognition. "

The Tribunal said its general conclusion was that the Crown had committed numerous serious Treaty breaches.

"These had considerable economic, social, cultural, environmental and spiritual repercussions for nga iwi o te kahui maunga, for which it recommended substantial and culturally appropriate compensation."

English comments

English agreed the settlement negotiations would be discussed in any prospectus for Genesis Energy, as it was for Mighty River Power. 

"The anchor point for all this is the Supreme Court judgment which has been out there now for about 12 months so everyone is pretty clear about the legal basis on which the Crown is proceeding with these sales, and that is that the sale of share doesn't interfere with the claims process," English said."

"But equally we want to continue to deal with water claims, so for instance in the case of Genesis the Whanganui claim is directly relevant and we have made very good progress with Whanganui iwi about settling their claim on the Whanganui river and the sale won't interfere with that," he said.

More soon.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

12 Comments

What would happen if we attempted to renegotiate the social contract in NZ?

Would it look like a lolly scramble?

Would it look like a power grab?

Could we settle some long standing justice issues?

Up
0

There should be a publically viewable register of all Treaty payouts and settlements including those that are deemed confidential for which there appear to be many.

Rotorua council paid one iwi down there a confidential payout in order to maintain an existing resource consent that came up for renewal. No reason was given for the payout. Rotorua rate payers will pay the bill though I doubt you will see it in the accounts.. There can be only one reason for the secrecy. The payout was significant.

The reason for having a public register is firstly to show how much has been paid, to keep a running total.

Secondly to show the members of the iwi how much their leaders are receiving so that they can hold them accountable.

Thirdly to ensure all members of the iwi benefit - not just those at the top.

Finally where Maori ask to be co-owners of various resources to protect their Taonga. Do they put their resources and wealth in to help protect those resources or merely have their name added to the register? After all ownership comes with responsibility. Does anyone have examples or expieriences of this? Just curious...

Up
0

Transparency is always good policy for in the fertile soil of secrecy lies, deceit and misunderstanding grow.

Up
0

First, a  Treaty Settlement can hardly fly under the radar. Hundreds of people troop to Parliament, old ladies wail, politicians beam as they sign off. Do you want a Facebook page to keep track, or an Excel Spreadsheet? Good idea, we could add MP's airpoint usage and land holdings...As for Rotorua council signing secret deals, more fool Rotorua ratepayers.

 

Point 2. Maori corporate leaders are learning from the best...oh, I see your point...

 

Point 3. Iwi corps have  mixture of stock standard development strategies (50 something % of Ngai Tahu's wealth is in property and are developing 40-70 dairy farms; Waikato-Tainui have The Base, a massive retail venture on the outskirts of Hamilton) and innovative approaches to intergenerational welath (Ngai Tahu's Whai Rawa savings scheme, helping make young Ngai Tahu members some of the most savvy savers in the country). Long way to go of course, but underway.

 

Point 4. What? I'm guessing you want some data on sustainability and Maori values? Co-ownership or Co-management? Dozens of examples drawing on traditional knowledge and local input (usually voluntary). Co-management can lead to increased costs for iwi (e.g., biosecurity investment, fencing etc.) and therefore decreased costs for the Crown. Oh the irony... But if you were actually curious, you'd Google, ay...

 

Iwi authorities were framed during the neoliberal reforms to receive Settlements, they're a mixture of structures but will get away with what they can get away with. It was ever so...

Up
0

Howzabout, for the sake of being fair and balanced, at the same time as the implementation of your proposal, a register of confiscated maori lands, their locations, GPS co-ordinates, areas, identities of persons who have subsequently acquired them, how much money was involved, identities of persons who currently hold them ..

Up
0

Well if you want fair and balanced then why not add all the land whether Maori or other that has been confiscated as well.

 

Everyone is suffering from not being able to have free and undisturbed possession of their land. Did our Maori Ancestor Chiefs desire to forge a new relationship as ONE people with equal recognition?

 

 

Up
0

*/

Simbit. Seeing you seem to have some knowledge of these things.

What is the Treaty partnership?

How can the Crown commit a treaty breach? After the treaty was singed Maori

became British subjects and were protected under British law.

Who keeps the Waitangi Tribunal honest?

Up
0

ARB. The "Treaty" "Partnership" notion is a legal fiction invented by Judge Cooke, President of the Court of Appeal in 1987; there is no reference to it in the Treaty and Governor (he was appointed and declared Lieutenant Governor six months before the treaty was even drafted ) Hobson carefully explained to Maori Chiefs the duties and obligations of British citizens. The three Tongariro mountains were transferred to the Crown by Deed of Gift signed by Te Heuheu in 1887. This modern NZ preoccupation with pagan tribal "settlements" has in time, combined with MMP politics,  the potential to make the country ungovernable. 

As I warned here, and elsewhere, earlier this year following the Supreme Court case involving the Maori Council, that Judgment was not a clear win for the government. And that what was likely to happen is that the Taxpayer would, as the electricity SOE' shares are sold, end up with 100% of the Maori liability with just 51% of the energy revenue.

Ergophobia   

Up
0

Sorry for the delay.

We should all have some knowledge of the TeeDub, being as near to a founding document as this country can ever have.

 

Perhaps the most common breach by the Crown is stealing Maori land and resources contrary to (signed) declaration that ownership is to be retained by iwi and chiefs. The Waitangi Tribunal exhaustively researchers this for each claim.

 

As for keeping the Tribunal 'honest', they can only make recommendations. The Crown is free to act or not as they see fit. as they do with other government agencies (to whit, one Commerce Commission).

 

It is not an ideal system (not least for 'freezing tribal boundaries as they stood in 1840). But a lot of other countries are suffering from the lack of a similar insitution. 

Up
0

The way we are heading...The American way.

So change your thinking...or else.

And the State says "What is yours is mine".

Well actually the State amd Maori, in our case.

Excerpt of a piece that arrived today from USA.

A tax on your efforts, not theirs.  But we make the rules.

Pay up, or go to jail, do not  collect your 200$.

 

13 Million Gallons of Government Contraband

Dear Laissez Faire Today Reader,

Sixty-four-year-old Gary Harrington from Eagle Point, Ore., doesn't look like your average criminal. But according to local government officials, he's been blatantly skirting the law for the past 10 years. But about a year ago, his illicit activity finally caught up to him. He got hit with a 30-day prison sentence and had to surrender over 13 million gallons of contraband.

That's correct, 13 million gallons... of rainwater.

When it comes to the water that falls out of the sky, different states across the country have different laws. In some states, like Maryland, where Laissez Faire's offices are located, the state government actually tries to tax its residents for any rain that falls on their property.

Oregon isn't as harsh. When it comes to collecting the substance, it's permitted as long as it comes off an artificial surface (like your roof) and is stored in rainwater barrels. Maybe Harrington was a bit of a traditionalist. He stored his rainwater in three massive man-made ponds on his 170 acres of property.

In Oregon, the law states water is a publicly owned good. And in order for this water bootlegger to own and operate these reservoirs on his property, he needed the proper permits.

Permits... the dreaded governmental red tape that stifles innovation and entrepreneurship all across America.

Harrington's struggle with these silly regulations is more about getting the government's permission to do what you want on your own land. It's about the government making sure it has its regulatory fingers in any pies it can find. To let you know that in order to get anything done, you're going to need your government's permission first.

It's more of a power grab than it is a safety issue.

The water "bandit" created these ponds to ensure that his property and the surrounding areas had a ready water supply to protect against wildfires. But expecting government regulators to heed common sense and forward thinking is asking too much.

When asked about the situation, the deputy director of the Oregon Water Resources Department commented, "Mr. Harrington has operated these three reservoirs in flagrant violation of Oregon law for more than a decade. What we're after is compliance with Oregon water law, regardless of what the public thinks of Mr. Harrington."

Compliance. That's what it comes down to in most cases.

Up
0

A treaty item that you cannot afford,  that needs renegotiation.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1311/S00067/commissioner-costs-each-child-90000.htm

Up
0

No commissioner caused this loss. It was caused by a school management that went completely feral. Destructive to the interest of kids. That takes time and cost to correct.

Up
0