Politics
Labour made H2O an election issue, but National is also neck-deep in it.
Although the watchword for this election has long been supposed to be “Winston”, another W is muscling in: water.
The Government surged into “Tax alert!” mode when Labour produced its water-charging policy, only belatedly to remember, courtesy of Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson, that National was arguably further down that route than any other party.
As Madge used to observe in the old Palmolive ads, “You know you’re soaking in it?”
Water has become a resonant election issue on several fronts: alarm at river pollution, a second serious water-supply contamination and the oftennominal sums water bottlers pay for the pristine raw product.
The latter is trivial compared with the contamination issues, but it’s an irresistible political itch to scratch because it’s so obviously outrageous. Water exporters in particular make a fortune from a natural resource they get for near-as-dammit free. Every comparable natural resource attracts a royalty to the state’s coffers. But water’s tricky because generations before water entrepreneurship, there was irrigation, manufacturing, electricity, hairdressing, restaurants, plumbing and sewerage soaking up the stuff – not to mention small children getting up in the night asking for glasses of it that they didn’t really want – none of which incurred any direct charge. Aside from a water component in local body rates, free use of water is the rule rather than the exception. Politicians the world over who try to charge for it get, to quote one of Sir John Key’s favourite phrases, their arses handed to them.
Still, the Government’s resistance to capitulate to such a populist cause as charging bottlers for their water has superficially seemed pedantic.
It would create anomalies, since we don’t charge any other users, the argument goes. The question has hung in the air: why not just treat spring water for bottling like mining and leave everything else as it is?
The answer: iwi. The minute you declare a price-per-litre, whatever the heck you call it, you have legally conferred an ownership status on someone. At that point, iwi would assert their right for a share – not just of ownership but also management.
WHAT’S THAT SQUAWKING?
Labour’s policy of an impost on bottled water and a considerably smaller one on irrigation water brought understandable squawks of indignation from farmers, and anti-business charges from the party's opponents. But after a series of embarrassing mathematical flights of fancy, notably by National Party stalwart Michelle Boag portending $2.50 apples, it was clear the proposed regime was unlikely to push any farmer or bottler to the brink of anything other than a bad mood.
Then Finlayson – bravely or recklessly – warned of “the Pandora’s box” Labour would open in terms of triggering Maori claims, and National’s torrent of scorn abruptly dwindled to a trickle. For Finlayson’s comments only drew new attention to the fact that he himself is pretty much sprawled across Pandora’s box’s lid already as it quakes under him.
Finlayson is pretty much sprawled across Pandora’s box’s lid already.
The Waitangi Tribunal is addressing whether the present laws governing water accord with the Treaty of Waitangi. Odds are it will conclude: not without iwi.
Luckily for the Government, public hearings don’t begin until after the election. But as elephants in rooms go, this is a stonking great tusker in everybody’s parlour – not least because of that original W-word. New Zealand First vigorously opposes the extension of iwi rights. Leader Winston Peters has founded his career on opposing Maori exceptionalism. And the polls still suggest NZ First will hold the balance of power.
Under Finlayson’s stewardship,
National has taken much of the heat out of the Maori claims issue and pointedly left all doors ajar, even on water rights. But Prime Minister Bill English has expressed his view as “No one owns water.” Many in National would oppose any formal ownership rights for iwi, and compulsory shared management with Maori would frighten the bejesus out of councils already struggling to agree on management of basic infrastructure. But all political parties can now see that this is the foreshore and seabed bind revisited. The courts will probably say Maori rights exist. The next government’s NZ First coalition partner will likely say: in your dreams, sunshine.
Creative ways around this are in the offing. Future bottling or commercial usage deals could, for instance, feature an extra impost on the resource-consent fee. These might just happen to be calculated on the basis of a notional perlitre royalty fee but would legally be termed a component of the consent fee, rather than a price. But some in Maoridom will doubtless find this a bit cute. There are a lot of W-words to flow under a lot of bridges before any consensus will be reached. Having courted Maori assiduously, National will find this just as politically challenging as Labour would. Talk about just add water and stir.
GO THE AUSSIES
Thank heavens for Julie Bishop reminding us who our real enemies are. The Australian Foreign Minister’s attack on Labour, although unprecedented partisan hostility in transtasman relations, at least gave our electioneering politicians a wee break from fearing and loathing one another. Much as our MPs might resist rejoicing in the misfortunes of others, the plight of Aussie Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce just quietly struck many as worth making an exception for. Found, against his knowledge or will, to be a New Zealand citizen, he may have to resign, leaving his Government without a majority.
This will, among other things, be a challenge for those who refuse to believe in karma.
Our Government has been constantly in the gun for failing to get Australia to treat New Zealanders over there as generously as we treat Aussies here. Technically, this country has nearly toppled the Australian Government without lifting a finger. Hopefully, Australians will tremble to imagine what damage we could do if we got really cross. Pressure on all parties to adopt policies of declaring any Aussie ministers who cross us citizens as well is palpable. Talk about loving our neighbours to death.
Fortunately, this unifying mood lasted just half a news cycle before our Labour and their Labor were accused of unseemly collaboration, Bishop retaliated by intervening in our politics, our Labour called in the High Commissioner to complain, our Government egged Bishop on and Joyce set a land-speed record to un-New Zealand himself. Can secret hit-squads of genealogists be far away?
Hopefully, Australians will tremble to imagine the damage we could do if really cross.