OUT OF FAVOUR ??

We remember fondly one of Gerry Brownlee's great lines about National Party operative Bryan Sinclair , whom at the time was supposed to be in charge of every major PR play by the National Party under the leadership of Don Brash.

Gerry, effectively ended all speculation by the media that Sinclair was still a "key man" involved in party strategy when he declared he was " someone who puts out chairs at press conferences"

It was clear by that cutting comment that Sinclair was no longer a party influencer.

We think that we are witnessing the same falling from favour of Ngai Tahu functionary( actually she is General Manager of Strategy and Influence) Sacha McMeeking who was recently appointed by National to the infrastructure Technical Advisory Group by Nick Smith on the 28th of January this year.

Its terms of Reference are:

Infrastructure Technical Advisory Group

The RM Phase II Infrastructure Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is appointed to provide independent advice to the Minister for the Environment on proposals for the reform of the Infrastructure provisions in the RMA and related legislation.

The Scope of the TAG's investigation of infrastructure work will include:

• A review of the role of designations in facilitating infrastructure development and an examination of options for reviewing and streamlining the designation mechanism.
• An investigation of alternatives to designations for planning for and managing the effects of activities on network infrastructure.
• Streamlining and integrating processes including for acquisition and compensation, under the Public Works Act 1981 and other legislation.

Ms McMeekings biography for that job reads:

Sacha McMeeking is of Ngāi Tahu descent and in 2009 was appointed General Manager Strategy and Influence with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.

Sacha McMeeking was a law lecturer at University of Canterbury from 2005 to 2007 and her career to date has included legal academia, social work, kaupapa Māori programme design and strategic and political advice. Sacha McMeeking will bring a strong Māori perspective to the group.

All that is very interesting as apparently Ms McMeeking was the author of the Iwi Forum
" alternative model "for for the Foreshore and Seabed Act. as well.


The government was apparently angered at the leaking of the " Alternative model" which pays lips service to property rights. Interestingly, that last week that led her to being described as a "relatively junior operative" .

However Fran O' Sullivan certainly didn't think Ms McMeeking was a relatively junior operative. She wrote :

"This document, written by Maori strategist and Ngai Tahu staff member Sacha McMeeking, was quickly played down once the Government started asking questions.

But McMeeking is no "relatively junior operative", as the Government has suggested. Her suggestion that the new act should be silent on the issue of ownership and that decision-making and autonomy of iwi and hapu be increased has not been disavowed by the leadership group. Neither has her suggestion that the concept of mana is enduring and inalienable, that coastal iwi/hapu have the right to continue to express that mana and that may encompass development and other rights."

She also suggests iwi/hapu should have veto rights over economic development including coastal occupation and resource extraction - "the Crown will panic at the thought of a nationwide veto but if it was applied to identifiable sites they might cope".

Whoever leaked the document has done all Kiwis a favour by bringing these shadowy dealings into the open."

All this against a backdrop of a Fantastic speech at Waitangi, by John Key where the Property Rights issue was given prominence

"In our homes and communities New Zealanders of all ethnicities live and work side-by-side in pursuit of a shared set of aspirations. No matter our cultural heritage, by and large New Zealanders value hard work and education, we seek better living standards and increased opportunities for our children, and we want this to be an inclusive nation where we respect each other and where each of us has the opportunity to get ahead.

Implicit in that set of values is an acknowledgment of the legal and cultural traditions we have in common. We share a respect for the rule of law, for property rights and for a basic sense of fairness in which Jack is as good as his neighbour.

The descriptor, relatively junior operative, applied to McMeeking , like that applied to the hapless Bryan Sinclair, is an indicator that her star maybe waning.

We watch developments on this front with interest.

LOOKS LIKE A KURI BARKS LIKE A KURI

We were alerted to two documents that have been leaked to the Tangata Whenua.com website that show that the Foreshore and Seabed issue is in trouble.

The first we understand, is an early draft of an "alternative proposal" to the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Its custodians are apparently the Iwi Leaders Forum.

The second is rebuttal, and although the language is a bit intemperate the premise and analysis is sound.

The " Alternative proposal" is a ( kuri ) dog .. for these reasons.

Its shows a scant understanding of property rights or commerce.

And it shows an even scanter understanding of tikanga.

It proffers a solution that is all about status – that will piss Pakeha off – but offer no real legal or commercial benefit for Maori.

The cock up with the Foreshore and Seabed act was that it did not recognise property rights or due process.

As a nation we need not fear ownership of small bits of the Foreshore and Seabed by Maori - indeed we should embrace it. With rights come responsibilities.

Instead this document is a wishy washy salve to political objectives ( note it even refers to " feel good" factors) and not a rights based approach.

What New Zealanders want is something that is fair and legally robust.

While the Iwi Leaders Forum denotes a group with mana and intellect this paper is a simplistic attempt to take more than can be morally justified but less than that which might be legally justified

It trades off the tiny bit of the foreshore Ngati Apa may have been able to get, in exchange for a nebulous bit of feel-good nonsense around the whole South Island coast line .

The fact of the matter is that there is no simplistic feel good national solution to this problem – it has to be based on the law and due process iwi by iwi

The paper was apparently written by controversial Maori strategist and influencer Sacha McMeeking.

If so we wonder how much she was paid for it?

simplistic solution to complex issue

takedown

OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CANARIES

Mattthew Hooton's company Exceltium has some seriously big clients and one of the smartest teams in PR/Government Relations sector. So it is no surprise that he has published a paper in his company newsletter which examines New Zealands woeful record on extinguising property rights via a raft of decisions made under Labour.

The solution, the authors say is to insert property rights into a Bill of Rights.
Here's an excerpt from Exceltiums client newsletter.

This edition highlights a paper being published today by Professor Lewis Evans and Professor Neil Quigley of the Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation at Victoria University of Wellington, along with NERA Economic Consulting, entitled “Protection of Private Property Rights and Just Compensation: An Economic Analysis of the Most Fundamental Human Right Not Provided in New Zealand”.

The paper compares New Zealand’s record on human rights with the rest of the OECD; finds our record to be among the worst in the developed world; details the economic harm being done to all New Zealanders as a result; and proposes a legislative solution involving an amendment to the Bill of Rights Act to ensure a canary in the mine exists to alert the public if and when future parliaments seek to confiscate property rights without compensation.

Case studies of the harm done by the current lack of protection of property rights are outlined, including:

· the confiscation of the value of crown pastoral leases

· the destruction of Maori land value by Crown pre-emption rights

· the nationalisation of petroleum

· the confiscation of the foreshore and seabed

· the destruction of value of pre-1990 forests under the Emissions Trading Scheme

· the attack on the value of shares in Auckland International Airport Ltd

The paper and newsletter are being published in advance of next week’s Jobs Summit. Simply put, they demonstrate that if the new Government moves to protect property rights, there will be more jobs in our economy than otherwise. We expect the paper to attract significant interest from the new Government, including the Maori Party; the Human Rights Commission; and business groups including Business New Zealand, Federated Farmers and the Wellington Chamber of Commerce.

The full paper can be found at http://www.iscr.org.nz/n493.html and it was also previewed on page six of today’s National Business Review.

We think it should provide some gravitas to the Job summit. We had feared that it would be a once over lightly, but with this sort of thinking going into the mix, some inspirational ideas from Maori, a proposal to use some of the dead millions sitting the Maori Trustee, it could well come up with some innovative solutions.

We were also bemused to think that Labour was under the impression that they should be invited - considering the fact that all they have proved is they can turn a good money into no money - its a bit rich..