Resignation from the Waitangi Tribunal
- Richard Prebble has put out a media article announcing his resignation from the Waitangi Tribunal (which is a first for an outgoing member). He was only appointed last October, but says the Tribunal is pursuing a socialist manifesto which he disagrees with. (His letter of resignation is said to note the ‘Ngā Mātāpono / The Principles’ as a report he objects to).[1]
[By way of background note: subscribers will likely be aware socialism is characterised by centralised /government control and/or ownership over various means of production and services, as opposed to private enterprises. A good example of a recent ‘socialist-orientated’ policy shift in New Zealand might be removing choice from school communities in the school lunch initiative, and determining that a centralised state controlled approach would be better. Hence why the Minister responsible for this decision, David Seymour, is presently facing challenges in this area, as opponents disagree the centralist approach best serves schools and children in need.]
- Countering Mr Prebble’s view, the Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal, Chief Judge Dr Caren Fox, has put out a media release noting the resignation, but also clarifying that she expects:
“all members to undertake their own due diligence, to read reports, and understand the Vision, Mission and Purpose of the Waitangi Tribunal before accepting appointment.”
- We note at the time of Mr Prebble’s appointment there was much ado from opposition parties about it, given Mr Prebble, when he had been the leader of the Act Party (1996-2004), had been against Treaty settlements. For example, he spoke and voted against the 1998 Ngai Tahu settlement, saying it would result in endless litigation. So upon appointment, the opposition questioning was essentially along the lines of, ‘given he was against Tiriti reconciliation processes back then, could he fulfil the role of a Tribunal member now in the Tiriti justice sector?’
- There are a few unusual aspects to Mr Prebble’s resignation. Ultimately, why Mr Prebble accepted the appointment to sit on panels inquiring into possible breaches of Te Tiriti and then decided – before he has even been actively involved – that he didn’t want to do that – is odd. Almost as strange as putting out a public piece blaming the Tribunal for his change of mind. Maybe he wrongfully thought he was being appointed to do something other than be a member of inquiry panels – perhaps he thought he was there to change the Tribunal’s role – but that was never his remit. Or was his appointment and resignation (both of which have attracted media) just a political stunt to undermine the Tribunal? Either way, in our view the responsible Minister, Tama Potaka, perhaps also needs to ensure better due diligence in appointment processes – particularly given Mr Prebble says he was personally approached by the Minister to join the Tribunal.
- Additionally, given we have read the majority of Waitangi Tribunal reports released over the last decade, our assessment would be that there are a few consistent themes. One is that after examining evidence put before it, the Tribunal often finds Māori collectively are experiencing a socio-economic disadvantage, and to that end recommends the government of the day ensure its policy decisions focus on equity of outcomes in order to uphold article three Tiriti obligations. But also, the Tribunal very often sides with claimants’ pleas that the best way to do that is to allow Māori to make decisions over matters that affect Māori – i.e. greater autonomy and less government controls. Hence recommendations like a Māori health authority. Or Māori education authority. Or devolution of Oranga Tamariki services for tamariki Māori to iwi groups, etc. In short, the Tribunal’s advice to the government often reads to us as an antithesis of a socialist agenda.
- In sum, our sense is that Mr Prebble’s lack of competency in this area means he has no idea about what function the Tribunal serves, and it now reads as if he joined the Tribunal with his preexisting mindset from the 1990s affixed – hence his curmudgeon comments. Plus we now wonder if he still knows what socialism is. Koroua haere pea?
Directorships at Ngāi Tahu Holdings
- This week a media outlet has published articles on directorship changes at Ngāi Tahu Holdings (the business arm of Ngāi Tahu). The essence of the article is that three of the seven directorships have been ended, and one of those people whose directorship has concluded has objected, writing to the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu board expressing concerns around the process, allegedly saying that they felt “disrespected, hurt and humiliated”. Compensation and an independent review of the process used are said to be requested. (The letter is private, but it appears media have a copy.)
- Ngāi Tahu chair, Justin Tipa, has responded indicating that Ngāi Tahu reviews the composition of boards from time to time, and that “our three directors have contributed significantly to Ngāi Tahu Holdings”. Without further information it is difficult to assess such matters, but in essence from the statement made it appears the shareholder (Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu) decided it only wanted four directors at this time, and therefore three roles were surplus to requirements. I.e. the ending of the directorships do not present as direct terminations, but as redundancies.
- Without taking a direct view on this specific situation, broadly, directors of any company are accountable to their shareholders and should expect structural and/or personnel adjustments at the will of shareholders, particularly when large financial losses have occurred. Unfortunately, that is the case for Ngāi Tahu Holdings over the last two financial years, in which over $100 million in losses are recorded (Pānui 40/2024 and 40/2023 refer). We wish the outgone directors and Ngāi Tahu well.
‘Unfair, underhanded’: Iwi sacks directors ‘without notice’ | Stuff
Tūhoe High Court Case
- This week there is a media report about Ngai Tūhoe successfully gaining a High Court order (interim injunction) to stop a hapū grouping and a contractor from undertaking unauthorised logging operations on land owned by the iwi. The essence of the matter is that one hapū of the iwi consider they alone are the sole rightful owner of a forest block, Matahī, and thus they contracted a logging company to build roads and harvest logs. But the title of the block is clearly with Tūhoe-Te Uru Taumatua Trust (TUT), the settlement entity of the iwi (and other hapū also believe they have interests in the forest too).
- Aside from an iwi to hapū land dispute (not unheard of elsewhere), the more astounding aspect is that the logging company involved appears to have wilfully ignored, more than once, clear ownership information (like land titles) and dismissed requests they stop their work and remove themselves from the iwi’s land – hence the court action. The same company also appears to have ignored a directive to stop from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council who told them they were breaching forestry regulations. Taking logs from Māori land without the owner’s permission, really? – is it 2025 or 1925? The application for a permanent injunction will be heard next week.
Tūhoe gets injunction to stop hapū occupation and logging of iwi-owned forest | Stuff
[1] Short title. Refer to Pānui 25/2024 for further details on this report.
