Recently, I wrote about the games that Maori iwi are playing with local authorities as they seek to extort money from councils by using their versions of Treaty obligations. It turns out that the scene is much worse than I first thought. Several informants have given me chapter and verse about stand-over tactics being used to extort money from councils, and therefore from ratepayers.
Many local authorities have a form of joint management agreement with their local iwi. These days most iwi representatives turn up to meetings looking for points of leverage with their councils. They want Maori representation on all council-controlled organisations so they can work out the points at which pressure can be applied to channel money from local ratepayers towards the Maori aristocracy. They use a perverted version of Article 2 of the Treaty which guaranteed chiefs control over their lands, while failing to acknowledge that any rights went if the land was sold. They play their cards cautiously, but firmly. Realising that if their demands were put to a local referendum they would almost certainly lose, they apply pressure to mayors, councillors and officials in the hope that the councils won’t want unpleasantness, nor the expense of referenda, and will just pay up. Waikato-Tainui’s pressure on Auckland’s Watercare for an increase in the levy paid for water from the Waikato river is a case in point. The public wasn’t told what was proposed, nor how much was being demanded until the increase had been agreed.
Another shocking case I’ve been told about involved a bridge which a council wanted to construct. “No” said the iwi. “The ancestors of Maori in the area are buried where the bridge foundations are planned to go”. When the council pulled back, the iwi followed up with an offer: Maori would overlook the insult to the burial place of their tipuna if the council agreed to pay the tribe lots of money. This is not an isolated case. If councils in this situation still don’t pay up, there are threats; in some cases, legal action is taken on the grounds that the ancestors’ bones are sacred. But, as you get the drift, the ancestors’ remains can be negotiable if cash can be extorted by their descendants.
Cultural reports are regularly sought if any new development is contemplated. I’ve heard of several demands in the South Island, and I’ve been told of a similar case in Tauranga. These days, iwi seem to have a standard “report” on their computers which they tweak slightly each time a report is needed so that it applies to the new case. The iwi then sets the price. It’s becoming quite a profitable business.
This kind of stand-over tactic uses up officials’ time and, if settled, can be costly. As we know, development in New Zealand is expensive compared with other countries, and the greasing of palms using bogus Treaty claims only adds more to the total cost of any project. If traditional Maori society were democratic then at least some of the money might flow back to ordinary Maori. But democracy plays little or no part in the traditional Maori world, and it will be ordinary Maori who pay disproportionately for their leaders’ Treaty antics through the consequent increase in rates and rents they then have to pay. Of course, everyone including rich and poor Maori will get to drive over the bridge once finished, but meantime there is a bonus for the few iwi leaders who are well positioned to extort it.
It is urgent that those statutory opportunities allowing for the extortion of money from local authorities using perverted Treaty of Waitangi claims are brought under control by legislation. There is nothing in the Treaty designed to facilitate stand-over tactics. The more such cases come to light, the more an argument can be advanced for enforcing democracy within tribal structures. If iwi keep inventing new privileges under Article Two of the Treaty, then the Crown should use Article 3 which says that Maori rights and duties are the same as those of everyone else. It makes no sense to use Article 2 to create special privileges for Maori while then promising equal rights in Article 3.
All of this is an argument for David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill that is in the offing. And it is not just iwi bandits who need to be restrained. The courts are starting to frolic about over the meaning of the Treaty and its application, producing their own far-fetched interpretations of the Treaty. Seymour’s legislation needs to make it clear to judges that Parliament makes the law, and the courts apply it.