Undue Influence: New Zealand’s Tribal Corruption Charter
Corruption takes different forms in different nations. In New Zealand the Race Based Laws which grant legal privilege to Maori individuals and tribal entities have resulted in a form of corruption, the undue influence of Maori tribal entities upon New Zealand’s governance, economy and society.
Since 1975, this undue influence has resulted in an expanding cycle of “legalised” extortion, a "virtual Tribal Corruption Charter" through which wealthy, litigious tribal trusts can employ their special legal status as a mechanism to gain additional legal rights and powers, financial gain to individuals (mainly tribal trustees and employees) and tribal entities.
The ability of Maori individuals and groups to lodge claims with the Waitangi Tribunal that they have been prejudiced, in conjunction with an increasingly radicalised Maori electorate, also exerts undue influence on governments seeking policy reform, as governments quietly pay sweeteners to tribal groups to avoid protracted litigation and maintain internal support from Maori electorate MPs.
As many of the Race Based Laws are indirect in influence (eg the right to be consulted on an environmental application rather than the power to refuse consent), tribal entities often resort to implied threats of litigation and delay. As voiced by one tribal trust:
“It says the first rule on consent application is to “object”. The second rule on consent application is “object”. If in doubt go back to rule one (objection gives time, time is of no importance to us, only the application) it says. The first rule of objection is to claim lack of consultation, the document states. The second is the Treaty of Waitangi, the RMA is the third, and the fourth “anything anyone can think of”. Results would not be measured in dollars, “but the sum of the good that can be gained for the hapu”.(1)
The result of this undue influence of tribal entities is massive costs, both direct and indirect, imposed upon government ministries and agencies, local government, business and individuals. (2),(3)
Direct costs to business and individuals include costs for "soft" payments to tribal entities, unwanted and unnecessary cultural consultancy and advisory services, regulatory complexity, legal fees and delay. The wider economy must also be damaged as individuals and businesses simply walk away from both scientific endeavour and business opportunities.
Indirect costs for the operation of parallel institutions, separate Maori seats, Maori wards, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Maori Courts and co-governance etc flow to individuals and business through increased taxes, rates and charges. In some instances, undue influence fosters criminal corruption which may or may not be reported to authorities.
The following entries, which document instances of only a tiny fraction of the undue influence exerted by tribal entities over the last forty years, illustrate how tribal rights are damaging not only our economy but the nation's social fabric through the normalisation of New Zealand's peculiar form of constitutional corruption.
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org if you have verifiable examples of undue influence that you would like to be included on this page.
Northland Regional Council has granted resource consent to Refining New Zealand to dredge the entrance to Whangarei Harbour.
To get a bore you have to get iwi consent, and they want a koha, which is not a gift, it's a bribe" one woman stated.
One Pure, owned by Hong Kong based corporation Hon Lung International, with the capital and expertise to build a massive water bottling facility, felt the need to approach Hawke’s Bay tribal entity Ngati Paarau[i] for “support and partnership [ii]” in their endeavour. Why?
"Through regular engagement and funding provided by Genesis Energy, the parties seek to deliver the broad objectives of developing a long term relationship, assisting Marae development, fostering cultural understanding, supporting the kaitiaki role of the Marae and enhancing the environment and supporting education and training initiatives".
"We were then told that under the new Draft Unitary Plan, not yet enacted, our building being within 50 metres of a designated Maori heritage site, we needed RMA approval (for a new shop window, for God’s sake), this instantly forthcoming at a cost of $4500 plus the approval of 13 iwi".
Waitaha (te Runanga O Waitaha Me Mata Waka Inc) appeal against the granting of RMA consents by Waitaki District and Otago Regional Councils, claiming the Councils had failed in their resource consents process to apply the Treaty of waitangi, Resource Management Act, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Local Government Act.
"This decision is also concerning in that it invites Maori and Genesis to have 'a meeting of the minds' over the next 10 years to resolve the future use of the water. This is an invitation for backhanders, given the huge value of electricity and the leverage that Whanganui iwi will have over Genesis.
Members of iwi Ngati Kura clamp four cars at Matauri Bay and clamp four cars belonging to students on the beach for a surfing lesson.
(1) Ngati Puu: Christchurch Press, 12th March 2003; quoted on Dr Nick Smith: Hansard Parliamentary Debates: resource-management-amendment-bill-no-2-—-first-reading; http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/47HansD_20030320_00001026/resource-management-amendment-bill-no-2-%E2%80%94-first-reading
(2) Round, D --- "Here Be Dragons?"  OtaLawRw 3; (2005) 11 Otago Law Review 31
(3) Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance costs, which identified that the RMA was a significant cost to business due to:
• Inconsistency in interpretation
• Lack of capacity in local government
• Time delays
• Difficulties in meeting obligations to Maori
A flyer challenging Prime Minister Bill English’s record on a single standard of citizenship went out to 1.6 million households today. The flyer that calls on everyone to use their vote in this year’s election “to end National’s race-based policies” was distributed by equal rights group Hobson’s Pledge.Read more
The total stupidity of the Waitangi Tribunal was full on display last week. I refer, of course, to the finding that Maori re-offending is a Treaty breach. It's bad enough that such reports are written let alone that we taxpayers must fund them.Read more
Strategies used by Corrections to reduce re-offending should be carried out irrespective of ethnicity, Hobson’s Pledge spokesperson Casey Costello said today.Read more
Hobson’s Pledge says that there is no longer any need for the Waitangi Tribunal. There are at least seven reasons why the Waitangi Tribunal should be abolished.
- A permanent, for-Maori-only complaint body creates a race fault line. This conflicts with an underlying simple principle that in a democracy like New Zealand all citizens must be treated the same under the law.
- The tribunal rewrites history. This re-written history that deplores wicked white colonisers for all manner of alleged crimes is posted on the Waitangi Tribunal website and is used as an indoctrination tool to convince us that “Maori” are owed an immense debt that can never be repaid.
- The tribunal is biased. By the early 1990s, the tribunal became advocates for claimants rather than independent assessors on the claims put before them. For instance, try to recall any instance in which the tribunal decided in favour of the Crown.
- Tribunal recommendations have undermined private property rights. The Treaty of Waitangi Act was amended in 1993. Amendment (4A) says “the tribunal shall not recommend … (a) the return to Maori ownership of any private land; or (b) the acquisition by the Crown of any private land.” Nevertheless, demands for the right to claim against private land persist.
- The tribunal was promoted as an avenue for Maori to air grievances rather than resorting to protest action. But protest has increased. Waitangi Day protests became an annual event. The size of protests have increased. The 1975 land march brought 5000 protestors to the steps of parliament, yet the 2004 foreshore and seabed hikoi brought 15,000 protestors.
- The tribunal has created a “gravy train”. The government employs more than 120 to operate the Waitangi Tribunal and Office of Treaty Settlements. Hearings are awash with lawyers, most on legal aid, which provided $79 million from 2006 to 2012. The 2008 “Treelords” settlement racked up $60 million in fees and expenses in the deal which transferred ownership of central North Island forests to eight tribes. The top-earning “treaty negotiator” pocketed $1.5 million for work on 20 settlements.
- The tribunal is used to extract benefits for tribal interests. Tribal opportunists will take a claim to the tribunal knowing they will get a favourable report. Next step is the High Court, the Appeal Court, and then the Supreme Court. Claimants will repeat their outrageous claim until it is seen as fact. The claim does not have to succeed. At any point the government could grant a concession to make the claim go away.
Dr Michael Bassett, himself a member of the Fourth Labour Government, one of New Zealand’s foremost historians, and a former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, noted in 2004 that: “It is surely time to re-examine the tribunal’s usefulness. The captivity of crusading historians and those who have built careers out of sowing, then farming, grievances, the current body has passed its sell-by date. There is enough evidence to settle all outstanding historical grievances quickly. That process should be completed. What the future relevance of the treaty might then be requires further public debate. That issue involves all of us, not just the Waitangi industry’s vested interests.” (1)
A Consumerlink email survey in 2012 showed that of the 1031 people who responded, 68 percent favoured abolition of the Waitangi Tribunal.
The Waitangi Tribunal could be abolished by repealing Sections 4 – 8 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Any final historic settlements that are still in the pipeline could be negotiated directly with the Crown, which is often what is happening anyway.
- Time to ditch the tribunal, Dominion, September 14, 2004.