Landcorp unhappy about tribunal hearings exclusion

Press, 27 January 1988, Page 2

Landcorp unhappy about tribunal hearings exclusion

By

PETER LUKE,

political reporter

Landcorp has condemned the inability of State-owned enterprises to be represented at Waitangi Tribunal hearings that affect them. The chairman pf Landcorp, Mr David Chalmers, said yesterday that it meant his corporation might not be privy to proceedings that could threaten key sectors of its business. He described this situation as inequitable and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Landcorp told a Parliamentary select committee that it was pleased that a settlement had been reached between the Crown and the Maori Council over the procedures for handling land subject to a Waitangi Tribunal claim.

But it expressed concern at some aspects of the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Bill which was introduced to Parliament late last year. The corporation’s solicitor, Mr Kim Mouat, said that all the land that was to have been transferred to Landcorp was the subject of a tribunal claim.

Claims had multiplied from 29 in December, 1986, when the StateOwned Enterprises Act was passed, to about 130 last November, said Mr Mouat.

The bill says that only four parties are entitled to appear or be heard on any question relating to land transferred to an S.O.E. These are the claimant, the Minister of Maori Affairs, any other Crown Minister with an interest in the claim, and other

Maoris who satisfy the tribunal that they have an interest. Landcorp submitted that this was not a balanced grouping. “If the proposed legislation is seeking to redress past injustices may it not be in danger on this basis of being perceived as being likely to create new ones,” said Mr Chalmers in the submission. He also said that the bill envisaged an expansion in the tribunal itself, and he urged that any additional members be appointed in a balanced way. Mr Chalmers said that he had no criticism of the present tribunal’s work or the Maori majority. But he did say that it was important for people with commercial experience to be appointed to the tribunal.

He rejected criticism from a committee member, Mr Bill Dillon (Lab., Hamilton East) that he wished to give the tribunal an adversarial quality. Instead Mr Chalmers said that Landcorp, if represented at hearings, could disclose important information, or allow a compromise settlement to be reached over land claims.

Mr Chalmers has also called for all claims to be settled within five years, and for the bill to contain a "sunset clause,” forbidding any new claims after January 1, 1993. Landcorp told the select committee that the uncertainty of land claims had an unsettling effect on staff and its commercial undertakings. Mr Mouat gave the example of a property in

Blenheim Road, Christchurch, which Landcorp had hoped to develop into an industrial site as a private sector joint venture.

Because of the land claim, no private sector company would be willing to invest capital in such a development, he said.

The same uncertainties surrounded the value placed on the assets which Landcorp was to acquire.

Mr Chalmers said that a provisional agreement with the Treasury had placed a value of $270 million on the assets. Of this, $l5O million comprised farms, and $l2O million was made up of financial assets.

But these figures had taken no account of Maori land claims, which would reduce the market value of properties, he said.