Rent a mob protests add zero to debate

We've had another Waitangi Day celebration and while most of it was a genuine celebration, the news headlines were around protest again. This is not a surprise but an expectation because, like Ratana visits by the political parties, the topics for discussion are issues that affect New Zealand as a whole and Maori in particular.

Because the visits to Ratana surround the birthday of the leader of the Ratana Church movement, then the aspect of discussion is courteous and polite. Because the Waitangi celebrations are around the Treaty of Waitangi and, post-signing there was about 150 years of neglect of that treaty, bringing with that neglect hurt and insult, Waitangi Day is marked by protest. As much as there is a protocol, the protest movement don't believe they have done justice to the day without getting stroppy about something. Usually that something has a thread of truth to it. As they say, there is no smoke without fire.

Waitangi Day 2012, though, had a whole new fleet of protesters, being those who have been ensconced in Aotea Square at the Occupy Auckland campsite, so fit fairly and squarely into the rent-a-mob definition and added nothing to the colour and debate on the treaty grounds.

The latest itch that needed to be scratched was over section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act, which is a Treaty clause requiring the Crown owners of the SOEs to abide by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, such as consultation on the sale of shares. With a mixed ownership model, negotiation on the sale of shares by private owners would be unduly onerous on private shareholders and largely redundant. Onerous, because the sale of, say, $5000 of shares by a mum-and-dad shareholder to another mum-and-dad shareholder would require consultation with Maori.

How would the vendor of those shares contact Maori and consult? The cost of consultation would outweigh the value of the shares for a start. Redundant because the model for ownership is that 51 per cent of shares is held by the Crown and no single private shareholder can own more than 10 per cent of shares. That means they do not have a right to board member appointments, so all directors would be appointed by the Crown.

In the end, the whole deal will be seen as a storm in a teacup. The bigger question was always about the fact of the mixed ownership model, which some have called the sale of state assets and the raw nerve was not around a treaty clause. The Maori Party will not walk away from the National Government on this issue, because it is not the deal-breaker they initially thought it was and because Maori benefit from working inside the tent - aboard the waka - rather than in the water swimming furiously to catch up.

The same old faces showed at Waitangi. The same tension existed and reinforced to all sides that their entrenched views of one another were justified if more than a little skewed. I am proud of John Key for maintaining that the Government turning up at Waitangi year on year, even in the face of protest and debate, is important for openness and accountability. Imagine the hue and cry if he had done what Helen Clark did and had stayed away. Where was the accountability in that?