Attorney General, Christopher Finlayson has declined to hold an inquiry into the "corrupt" documents to acquire land for Te Roroa's "alleged" claim because he was a member of the Maori Affairs Select Committee that lied to Paliament for this claim to proceed. To allow an inquiry would prove this Maori Affairs Committee also withheld documents from Parliament. He also knew members of the Maori Affairs Select Committee were either related to Te Roroa or had a vested interest in the claim, but remained tight lipped. How corrupt was that and now to be our Attorney General!
Below is a letter to the Prime Minister asking that an inquiry is first held into the lies told and the submissions withheld by the Maori Affairs Select Committee from Parliament to allow this Bill to proceed before he orders a full public inquiry into the "alleged" Te Roroa claim and the "corrupt" documents used by the Crown Law Office to acquire this land. By the Attorney General, Mr Christopher Finlayson declining an inquiry, re-enforces his guilt into the handling of this "corrupt" Bill by the Maori Affairs Select Committee of which he was a member.
P.O.Box 1, Awanui, Northland. rossbaker@austarnet.com.au
9 December 2009.
Hon John Key,
Prime Minister,
Parliament Building,
Wellington.
Dear Sir,
I am concerned the Attorney General, Christopher Finlayson has declined to hold an inquiry into the documents used to acquire land for the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill when asked on our behalf by the Minister of Land Information, the Hon Maurice Williamson.
As Christopher Finlayson was a member of the Maori Affairs Select Committee that lied to Parliament that the One New Zealand Foundation submission was not heard, he would be extremely reluctant to hold such an inquiry. See Hansard.
An inquiry would not only show how corrupt this claim and the documents were to acquire the land for the Te Roroa claim, it would also show how corrupt the Maori Affairs Select Committee, of which Mr Finlayson was a member.
Mr Finlayson must have known that many of the members of this committee were either related to Te Roroa or had a vested interest in the claim. In fact, Pita Paraone admitted this at the final reading.
Mr Finlayson would also have known this Committee failed to report on the 8 submissions opposing this Bill, including one from the Federated Farmers of New Zealand. Federated Farmers had been very involved with the Crown in the purchase of Mr Titford's farm and knew the claim was false and the purchase corrupt and asked for an inquiry but their submission was withheld from Parliament by the Select Committee. If their submission had been heard and reported to Parliament, this Bill would not have proceeded. See copy of Federated Farmers of New Zealand submission below that was withheld from Parliament by the Maori Affairs Select Committee for very obvious reasons.
Part of this submission, 4.1.3. 5 states, "Local MPs have stated that they believe aspects of the claim are dubious. John Carter has stated that research done on the Te Roroa claim after it was heard by the Waitangi tribunal suggest the claim was inaccurate. Jim Peters has stated that he considers that there are questions over Te Roroa’s historical claim. Ken Shirley reportedly said that transcripts of court cases in 1892 and 1939, used as evidence in the Waitangi Tribunal hearings, may have been tampered with. Federated Farmers understands that he, John Carter and United Future leader Peter Dunne have all called for a full inquiry into the matter".
Sir, we ask that an inquiry is first held into the lies told and the submissions withheld by the Maori Affairs Select Committee from Parliament to allow this Bill to proceed before you order a full public inquiry into the Te Roroa claim and the corrupt documents used to acquire this land. By the Attorney General, Mr Christopher Finlayson declining an inquiry, re-enforces his guilt into the handling of this "corrupt" Bill by the Maori Affairs Select Committee of which he was a member.
It will never go way, the paper trail left by those involve at the time, now fully documented on the internet for the entire world to see, will not allow it.
Your sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
cc. Richard Gardner, Senior Policy Advisor, Federated Farmers of New Zealand.
This letter, with attachment will appear on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
SUBMISSION TO THE
MAORI AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
on the
TE ROROA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL
by
FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND (INC)
MARCH 2007
Contact: Richard Gardner
Senior Policy Advisor
Phone: 09 379 0057
Email: rgardner@fedfarm.org.nz
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Inc) (“Federated Farmers”) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Maori Affairs Select Committee on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill.
1.2 Federated Farmers is a primary sector organisation that represents approximately 17,000 farmers and various other rural businesses. Federated Farmers has a long history of representing the needs and interests of New Zealand’s farming communities, primary producers and agricultural exporters.
1.3 The Federation aims to add value to its members’ farming businesses. Our key strategic outcomes include the need for New Zealand to provide an economic and social environment within which:
• Our members may operate their business in a fair and flexible commercial environment;
• Our members’ families and their staff have access to services essential to the needs of the rural community; and
• Our members adopt responsible management and environmental practices.
1.4 The total agricultural sector is even more important to the economy now than it was fifteen years ago. Its contribution to the New Zealand economy has risen from around 14.2 percent of GDP in 1986/87 to around 17 percent in 2002/03 (including downstream processing). Some authorities consider the agricultural sector’s current contribution to the New Zealand economy to be about 20 percent of GDP.
1.5 Federated Farmers has developed a set of principles, policies and protocols that guide its response to issues that arise out of the Treaty of Waitangi. Primarily, Federated Farmers acknowledges the Treaty of Waitangi as being New Zealand's founding document. It is considered that the Treaty provides legitimacy to the state of New Zealand and the Government. Federated Farmers sees the Treaty as binding the country and its peoples together: It guarantees the right of every New Zealander to live in the nation and to be equal before the law. To farmers, the Treaty guarantees their right to a place in the nation as people who live on and make a living from the land.
1.6 Federated Farmers considers that the Treaty should, as far as is practicable, be honoured, both in terms of rights and obligations and in accordance with natural justice. The Federation advocates respect for sites of significance to Maori.
1.7 Federated Farmers recognises that in years past the Treaty has been breached many times, particularly in relation to Article Two, through land confiscations and appropriations by the Crown. The Federation recognises that, where the Treaty cannot now be honoured or restitution provided in a way that is equitable to all New Zealanders, then the Crown has an obligation to compensate those who have had their treaty rights violated.
1.8 Nonetheless, and most emphatically, Federated Farmers considers that breaches of property rights under Article Two must not be compensated by violating the property rights of other New Zealanders. Private land or other private property rights must not be compromised as part of any Treaty claim or settlement.
1.9 Federated Farmers agrees that it is part of the Crown's obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to provide a procedure by which grievances can be addressed and resolved fairly and expeditiously. It is considered that it is in everyone's interest for this to be effective. Generally, the current process of Waitangi Tribunal investigation and recommendation, followed by negotiations between the Crown and Maori, is supported.
1.10 However, Federated Farmers considers that this process requires the Tribunal to be sufficiently resourced in order to ensure that claims are thoroughly researched, and that unnecessary delays do not arise. It is considered that such delays fuel resentment and social discord.
1.11 Likewise, Federated Farmers considers that, as the other signatory to the Treaty, Maori have an obligation to follow due process in terms of seeking justice. The Federation considers any intimidation of third parties to exert leverage on the Crown would constitute a breach of the duty of citizenship contained in Article Three of the Treaty. Land owners are entitled to the law's protection and laws against intimidation and harassment must be enforced. In particular, Federated Farmers considers that the Waitangi Tribunal must be required to refuse to receive, register, record or appear to acknowledge any claim seeking the return of privately owned land.
1.12 Federated Farmers considers that one of the major principles on which the country’s economy is based is that property owners have security over their property rights. The state must ensure that property rights will not be taken arbitrarily by other people, notably by the state itself. It is considered that one of the principal functions of Government, at both local and national level, is to protect the security of its citizens, including groups such as private land owners who might find they own land that was once the subject of dubious dealings by the Crown.
1.13 Federated Farmers considers it extremely important to the well-being of the country that those who invest and those who propose to invest have sufficient certainty that their investment won’t be devalued by government action or inaction. Investors must have the confidence that their assets and goods are safe from confiscation if they are to invest, or alternatively the confidence to know that they will be properly compensated if their property is required by Government or other requiring agencies in the public good.
1.14 The system of property rights that exists in New Zealand is not a recent artificial construct that can be changed at the whim of government. It is a centuries old system that developed as society developed, which is every bit as legitimate and solid a foundation of our modern society as Maori customary rights are for Maori society. Federated Farmers considers that the system of property rights is subject only to incremental change. Some parts of the bundle of property rights may have changed at the margin, but the underlying concepts remain. Even where a change occurs, it is rarely without substantial debate and negotiation.
1.15 Government’s power to take land, even with proper compensation should only be used sparingly, and be tightly constrained by a high threshold test, in that its taking and use must be essential for the achievement of a necessary public good. Those who wish the government to step in and force an exchange for their benefit should compensate those whose rights are diminished. It is the willingness of those who wish to force the exchange to pay the appropriate compensation that establishes that the benefits from the exchange exceed the costs of that exchange and ensure that the overall welfare of society is increased. The importance of the high threshold test is exemplified by the fact that those who lobby politically for the taking of property can escape many of the costs.
1.16 It is with regard to the above principles, policies and protocols that Federated Farmers makes this submission. Generally speaking, it is considered that many of the principles, policies and protocols have been breached in the lead up to the settlement agreement being reached between the Crown and Te Roroa, and indeed the introduction of the Settlement Bill to Parliament.
1.17 Most particularly, Federated Farmers is concerned that the Bill contains no recognition of the fact that some of the properties being returned to Te Roroa were for a time held in private ownership.
1.18 In addition, Federated Farmers considers that considerable doubt remains about the validity of some of the claims that are redressed by the Bill.
1.19 Accordingly, Federated Farmers is opposed to the passage of this Bill, for so long as it contains no recognition of the fact that some of the cultural redress properties have been held in private ownership, and for so long as doubts remain about the validity of some of the claims.
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Federated Farmers wants the proposed legislation properly reflect that some of the cultural redress properties that the Bill will return to Te Roroa have at one time been held in private ownership.
2.2 The Federation also wishes the Bill to reflect the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi Act has been amended to ensure that the Waitangi Tribunal can not now recommend the return of any private land, or recommend that the Crown acquire any privately owned land.
2.3 Federated Farmers considers that a recital reflecting these matters would go a long way towards protecting the interests of all private landowners.
2.4 Federated Farmers is aware that there has been considerable controversy that has surrounded aspects of the Te Roroa claim, its associated Waitangi Tribunal recommendations, and the settlement agreement reached between the Crown and Te Roroa that the Bill puts into effect.
2.5 Federated Farmers is concerned that, if Parliament enacts the Bill while doubts remain about the validity of some of the claims for which it provides redress, then the reputation of the Waitangi Tribunal may be damaged, and indeed the reputation of Parliament itself is liable to be impugned.
2.6 Federated Farmers is also concerned at the innuendo and unresolved allegations concerning the settlement reached between the Crown and Te Roroa which is given effect to by the Bill. It is considered that everything involved with the settlement must be “squeaky clean” before the Bill can be enacted.
2.7 Federated Farmers considers that the Select Committee should conduct a full inquiry into the circumstances of the settlement.
3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The Federation recommends that:
The Bill include recognition of the fact that some of the cultural redress properties have been held in private ownership, that they were repurchased by the Crown, and that following the purchase of those properties by the Crown, the Treaty of Waitangi Act was amended with the aim of ensuring that the Waitangi Tribunal could not make any recommendation for the return of any private land, or for the Crown to acquire any privately owned land in cases of claims seeking the return of privately owned land;
And that:
The Bill not proceed for as long as doubts remain about the validity of some of the claims for which it seeks to provide redress.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 The Key Issues
4.1.1 For Federated Farmers there are two key issues in the Bill. These are:
• That the Bill should include recognition of the fact that some of the cultural redress properties have been held in private ownership;
• That there are doubts about the validity of some of the claims for which the Bill seeks to provide redress
These issues are discussed in greater detail below.
4.1.2 Recognising that some of the cultural redress properties have been held in private ownership
4.1.2.1 Federated Farmers is particularly concerned to see that the proposed legislation properly reflects that some of the cultural redress properties which the Bill will have the effect of returning to Te Roroa have at one time been held in private ownership. The Federation also wishes the Bill to reflect the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi Act has been amended with the aim of ensuring that the Waitangi Tribunal can not recommend the return of any private land, or that the Crown acquire any privately owned land.
4.1.2.2 It is considered that one of the major principles on which the country’s economy is based is that property owners have security over their property rights. Rights in property should not be able to be taken arbitrarily by other people, most notably the state, and legislation should not be enacted which provides for rights in property to be taken without there being a very good public purpose for it to be taken. Federated Farmers wants to ensure that some of the circumstances surrounding the re-purchase by the Crown of land in the Maunganui Block in particular are never repeated.
4.1.2.3 Federated Farmers understands that some of the private land owners of land in the Maunganui Block were subjected to considerable harassment in the lead up to the re-purchase of their farms by the Crown. Federated Farmers considers that it is one of the principal functions of Government, at both local and national level, to protect the security of its citizens. The Federation is concerned that, without a proper recital of the circumstances surrounding the repurchase by the Crown of the private land involved, the owners of private land in other places that might have previously been the subject of mistakes or dubious dealings by the Crown might be subjected to similar treatment at the hands of people who think that, by chasing land owners off their land, they will be able to persuade the Crown to purchase that land and return it to themselves as part of the settlement of a treaty claim.
4.1.2.5 Federated Farmers considers that it is essential to security of property rights in the country that the Government ensure that the registration of title to land will be held to be good against all comers. It has been said of the system of land registration used in New Zealand that:
… the mere presence of the document of title in the Register Book should prove title to all the world against all the world. Therefore, every bone fide purchaser without notice can rely absolutely on the title appearing in the Register Book, and, on becoming registered in respect of such title, cannot be defeated in his purchase, notwithstanding whatsoever flaws there may have been in the title of his vendor (emphasis added).
It is considered that the manner in which the Crown has dealt with the private land involved in the Te Roroa settlement undermines the sanctity of title to the land involved, and by inference the sanctity of titles within the land registration system as a whole.
4.1.2.6 Accordingly, Federated Farmers considers that Parliament should provide for the Bill to acknowledge the fact that some of the cultural redress properties have been held in private ownership, that they were repurchased by the Crown, and that following the purchase of those properties by the Crown, the Treaty of Waitangi Act was amended with the aim of ensuring that the Waitangi Tribunal could not make any recommendation for the return of any private land, or for the Crown to acquire any privately owned land in cases of claims seeking the return of privately owned land. Federated Farmers considers that such a recital would go a long way towards protecting the interests of all private landowners.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Bill include recognition of the fact that some of the cultural redress properties have been held in private ownership, that they were repurchased by the Crown, and that following the purchase of those properties by the Crown, the Treaty of Waitangi Act was amended with the aim of ensuring that the Waitangi Tribunal could not make any recommendation for the return of any private land, or for the Crown to acquire any privately owned land in cases of claims seeking the return of privately owned land.
4.1.3 Doubts about the validity of some of the claims for which the Bill seeks to provide redress
4.1.3.1 Federated Farmers is aware of some of the controversy that has surrounded aspects of the Te Roroa “Wai 38” claim, and its associated Waitangi Tribunal recommendations.
4.1.3.2 Federated Farmers is concerned that, despite there being no physical evidence that certain areas should have been reserved from the original sales to the Crown, nevertheless the Crown Law Office apparently did a deal with Te Roroa in which it was agreed that there had been “a likely clerical error” that records covering the purchase by the Crown were wrong.
4.1.3.3 One of the private land owners involved, Alan Titford, has told Federated Farmers that he was harassed for 5 years before being driven off his property. He believes that the claimants withheld certain documents and falsified other documents to substantiate their claim. Mr Titford has told Federated Farmers that the Government officials intimidated him forcing him into bankruptcy and into selling his farm under duress to the Crown for only 20% of its value. Mr Titford has shown material to Federated Farmers which indicates that document recording the agreement reached between himself and the Crown was altered by the Crown after he signed it.
4.1.3.4 Federated Farmers understands that Mr Titford is making his own submission on the Bill to the Select Committee.
4.1.3.5 Local MPs have stated that they believe aspects of the claim are dubious. John Carter has stated that research done on the Te Roroa claim after it was heard by the Waitangi tribunal suggest the claim was inaccurate. Jim Peters has stated that he considers that there are questions over Te Roroa’s historical claim. Ken Shirley reportedly said that transcripts of court cases in 1892 and 1939, used as evidence in the Waitangi Tribunal hearings, may have been tampered with. Federated Farmers understands that he, John Carter and United Future leader Peter Dunne have all called for a full inquiry into the matter.
4.1.3.6 In addition, it seems that some of the officials involved in processing the claim had vested interests.
4.1.3.7 Federated Farmers is concerned that, if Parliament enacts the Bill while doubts remain about the validity of some of the claims for which it seeks to provide redress, then the reputation of the Waitangi Tribunal may be damaged, and indeed the reputation of Parliament itself is liable to be impugned. Federated Farmers considers that the Select Committee should conduct a full inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the settlement agreement, in particular the claims that were made over private land.
4.1.3.8 Federated Farmers considers that, if nothing else, there is too much innuendo and too many unresolved allegations floating about for the Settlement to be finalised by the passage of the Bill. It is considered that everything involved with the settlement must be “squeaky clean” before the Bill can be passed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Bill not proceed for as long as doubts remain about the validity of some of the claims for which it seeks to provide redress.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 Federated Farmers concerns centre around the fact that that the Bill does not recognise that some of the properties being returned to Te Roroa were for a time held in private ownership, and that considerable doubt remains about the validity of some of the claims that are redressed by the Bill.
5.2 Accordingly, Federated Farmers recommends that the Bill not be passed for so long as it contains no recognition of the fact that some of the cultural redress properties have been held in private ownership, and for so long as doubts remain about the validity of some of the claims.
|
