KEY POINTS:
Not the least ticklish byproduct of the Government's flagship emissions trading scheme is an issue raised by Ngai Tahu. The South Island iwi is concerned tens of millions will be wiped off the value of forests received as part of its Treaty settlement, and has lodged a fresh
claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. It says the Government of the day intended to sign the Kyoto Protocol but never informed the tribe of the flow-on effects of this. The negotiations were not, therefore, undertaken in good faith. If such were demonstrably so, Ngai Tahu may have a genuine cause for grievance - and redress.
The Government has appointed an independent reviewer to look at whether information was held back. This inquiry must be restricted to Ngai Tahu's case in both its scope and conclusions. If not, a can of worms will be opened. Ngai Tahu's example could be used by any tribe that somehow found itself disadvantaged by any post-settlement Government policy.
The consequences would be farcical. Governments and tribes would forever be examining the consequences of each and every policy. Not, of course, that an iwi would offer to return money if a policy actually boosted the value of its assets. There would be no acknowledgment, for example, that new state-funded transport infrastructure could benefit tourism enterprises run by Ngai Tahu.
The iwi's claim is based on the emissions trading scheme making the conversion of forest land to other use less economic, thereby lowering its value. Under the scheme, the owners of pre-1990 forests will pay a deforestation tax if they want to convert land. Ngai Tahu says it told the Crown at the start of negotiations that it was not interested in the forests and, once the cutting licences were finished, it would convert the land to farming.
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 and New Zealand ratified it in 2002. The Ngai Tahu settlement was signed in 1998. At first glance, that suggests the Government of the day may have had an inkling of the protocol's potential implications. The timeline also suggests, however, that Ngai Tahu should have been more aware of the repercussions. Given this, it might even be reasonable to argue the relevance of caveat emptor.
The Government says, in any event, it has already acknowledged that restrictions on the ability to convert forests to dairying affect land value. As compensation, the rate of free carbon units to forest owners provided under the scheme has been increased. That rate has, however, been deemed too low by both the iwi and the Forest Owners Association. The latter's members, unlike Ngai Tahu, do not, of course, have an avenue of redress. The National Party says it would provide a remedy for all parties through an offset scheme. This would allow the planting of an equivalent area of trees elsewhere, such as on eroding hill country, as a means of avoiding a penalty for changed land use.
The cards in Ngai Tahu's pack do not stop there. Under a relativity clause in its settlement, it has a right to return to negotiations if the value of all Treaty settlements ends up being more than $1 billion. An obvious reference point would be this year's Treelords settlement in the central North Island, which paid heed to the ramifications of the Kyoto Protocol.
Old files should provide the independent reviewer with sufficient evidence about whether or not the Crown disclosed all relevant information to Ngai Tahu. If compensation was deemed necessary, this would have to take account of the iwi's other recourses. Above all, this review should not be an invitation to read dollar signs into Government policy. Any such interpretation would invite ridicule.
