THE PRESS FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1987. Ridinas on asset transfers

Press, 3 April 1987, Page 16

THE PRESS FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1987. Ridinas on asset transfers

The issues at stake over the transfer of land to which Maoris may have a legitimate claim are of great moment; the High Court in Wellington and the Court of Appeal have treated the matter with the seriousness it deserves. All transfers to State-owned enterprises have been frozen until a Court of Appeal hearing planned for May 4. Social justice and legal and Constitutional issues are all involved here.

The basis of some Maori claims is that the land was misappropriated from them and that such land should not be put in the hands of any of the new corporations lest these bodies sell the land, thereby making it even more difficult for Maoris either to get back the land or to receive compensation. These allegations have a legal content; they also have a social content that no society should ignore. The effect of the ruling by the Court of Appeal is that land which may become the subject of claims to be made before the Waitangi Tribunal, as well as land now the subject of claims before the Waitangi Tribunal, should not be transferred to the corporations before the Court of Appeal considers the whole matter. This has stopped the transfer of many assets. The Government, understandably enough, believes that it is impossible to make proper decisions under these circumstances. A claim to land in say 50 years cannot be foreseen. Some Maori claims have been extravagant and among Maori radicals there are those who would like to see the whole of New Zealand returned to the Maori people. This could mean the general functioning of the country would be thwarted. Nothing as extensive as that is being argued in responsible circles now. The few weeks until May 4 will not mean that the country is at a standstill. Most of the corporations have not become the legal owners of assets, but they have become the managers. The State-Owned Enterprises Act made provision for some Maori land claims which had been lodged before the act received the assent of the Governor-General. The present position, at least until May 4, is immeasurably broader. Probably the five-week delay will not make much practical difference, because the Government and the corporations are still

arguing over the value of the assets and the corporations would not own them until the price was agreed. Considering the difference between the Treasury’s valuation and the valuations of some of the corporations, it might take five months or five years to decide on the price, not five weeks.

The magnitude of the task facing the Court of Appeal in May is huge. The Treaty of Waitangi, which has been cited in the hearings for the injunction, has sometjiing of a Constitutional status in New Zealand. What Parliament may need to do after the May hearing is to look at the whole question of Maori land claims and consider what the limitations should be. That will be a tricky task. This Government has set its face against retroactive legislation and yet there may need to be some sharp definitions. The delay will give the rest of New Zealand some time to ponder this whole question of the further possibility that the corporations will sell assets. Without such assets as dams and power lines, railways and certain buildings, this country would be undeveloped. The fact that the corporations might sell the assets does not mean that the assets will be removed from the country but it might mean that the assets will not necessarily be used for the benefit of this country. It is all very well to look at some of the largest and richest countries in the world and to say that various companies supply specific services such as electricity; but it does not follow from this that a country with a small population, still heavily dependent on the rural community, is ideally suited to have such diversification of ownership of resources. The Government’s aim in establishing the corporations has been to overcome any wasteful use of resources. But the Government’s further argument is that misapplied resources in the past have meant that the country has stagnated economically. It is far from clear, in the path that the Government has chosen, that New Zealand and New Zealanders will be better off by making the corporations the legal owners of some of the country’s essential assets. It is not just Maoris who need to look with some concern at the transference of assets.