Maori water rights claim at Supreme Court

Email
Print

Water rights claim at Supreme Court

3News NZ

The Ohakuri Dam on the Waikato River - operated by Mighty River Power

The Ohakuri Dam on the Waikato River - operated by Mighty River Power

The Maori Council's last effort to delay the partial sale of state owned power companies is underway in the Supreme Court.

The council maintains it's a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi to sell the assets.

Passersby outnumbered Maori Council supporters outside the Supreme Court, but inside their numbers swelled.

“What the court is being asked to do is make a declaration that until the Crown implements agreed protective measures, the privatisation is unlawful,” Maori Council lawyer Colin Carruthers QC said today.

Maori groups supporting the appeal say the case is a real test for the Treaty of Waitangi.

“We have to be confident - and we are confident because our arguments are based on principle,” Pouakani chairman Tamati Cairns said.

The argument is, the Government's plan to sell up to 49 percent of shares in Mighty River Power goes against the Treaty of Waitangi because under the treaty, the Crown is obliged to provide Maori with some control over their own water resources.

“Once those power companies are sold, the only interest Maori have in the water is a financial one and that is not what Maori interest in water is all about,” Mana Party leader Hone Harawira said.

The appeal to the Supreme Court comes after the High Court last year threw out the Council's challenge against the Government's plan to partially sell state-owned assets.

The Crown accepts Maori have some rights over water - but not full ownership.

The hearing will continue tomorrow - the five Supreme Court judges are expected to reserve their decision.

The Government plans to start selling shares in Mighty River Power as early as March.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

3/02/2013 7:36:02 p.m.

Adrian wrote:

Atrout you are disconnected from the truth supported by facts and your knowledge base fails you. Premise number one, there are two nations in NZ, the 1835 declaration validates this, combined with the treaty 5 years later cemented this in statute. Premise number two confession of historical injustices committed by previous Crown agents (settler governments) now maintained by present day crown agents. Premise number three, parliamentary supremacy under the well documented pepetrators rule is an indictment on the rights of those most affected to legally return to a position of prior state meaning undesturbed sovereign capacity. Premise number four. The perpetrator isn't going to relinquish its hegemonic illegally aquired rule over its treaty partner, the Maaori Nation any time soon. Rhetoric and propaganda lead us to believe this. Premise number 5, Democracy between two nations is a bilateral engagement. Within an individual nation the majority rule. In concluding the evidence conclusive in nature proves that the NZ Nation has every intention to integrate the Maaori Nation into its one nation programme though despite its colorful inhumane track record one can only deduce that it should be disempowered immediately and reinstatement to those most affected there of. Perpetual buse should not be tolerated ... at all!

1/02/2013 9:34:32 a.m.

atrout wrote:

@Adrian... you are one confused puppy. Is it cultural guilt that drives you or is it random disconnects in your logic? You write as if your head is full of a lot of longish words with little or no connection to any reality.

31/01/2013 10:18:08 p.m.

adrian wrote:

On the face of the Crown's already accepted historical injustices, retributive justice normatively speaking ought to favour the victims vigil to return to a position of prior state. In this context Maaori retrospectively qualify for more rights to water compared to it's perpetrators (Crown) position; that should be a given. Full ownership therefore as it appears to be is at the discretion of the perpetrated, simple logic that the general public connects with but will they apply the same morally driven principle toward legitimate Maaori grievances. NZ is way off the ideal of a peaceful coexistence with Maaori if NZers themselves in the modern era continue to treat Maaori as subordinates to ourselves.