Shaky claims, ideology underpin Three Waters
Iam not philosophically opposed to cogovernance and I disagree with David Seymour’s campaign to have a referendum on the issue. If Maori have a right to be treated as partners, then this right cannot be extinguished because the majority of non-Maori who make up the electorate declare it so. Equally, if this right does not exist, then imposing it without obtaining the consent of those whose rights are being over-ridden is wrong. When it comes to the Three Water reforms, it is subordinating the rights of ratepayers to the interests of local iwi, and doing so without consent or compensation.
We have a process for settling Treaty issues. Not everyone agrees with the outcome of a Waitangi Tribunal decision, but almost everyone agrees to abide by their decisions. It isn’t a perfect system but it works better than Molotov cocktails and hunger strikes.
Central to the reform agenda is the claim made by Nanaia Mahuta that 34,000 New Zealanders become ill each year from drinking poor-quality water. This number is softer than a week-old feijoa.
It is drawn from a 2006 report and contains two estimates: 18,000 and 34,000.
There is better data. Each year the Ministry of Health conducts an audit on water quality. The results are excellent. The worst that happens is sometimes there is a notice to boil water. Mahuta also likes to reference Havelock North, where in August 2016 an outbreak of gastroenteritis sent 45 people to the hospital.
According to the report on this event, ‘‘it is possible that the outbreak contributed to three deaths’’. (There is, to be fair to the minister, a legitimate issue about the level of investment needed, as evidenced by the failure of Wellington’s wastewater system.)
Taumata Arowai is the regulatory body set up in response to Havelock North. We can see in this organisation that their focus isn’t solely water quality. According to their website, ‘‘Our name Taumata Arowai was gifted to us by Hon Nanaia Mahuta, Minister of Local Government’’.
Having your name ‘‘gifted’’ by the reigning minister has a North Korean feel. This body enjoys a Mäori advisory board whom it must consult. The chair of this advisory body is the minister’s sister. The act that established this body, the Water Services Act 2020, introduces the concept of Te Mana o te Wai.
‘‘Te Mana o te Wai is about restoring and preserving the balance between the water, the wider environment, and the community.’’
There are six principles, including ‘‘…the power, authority and obligations of tangata whenua to make decisions that maintain, protect, and sustain the health and wellbeing of, and their relationship with, fresh water.’’
Water suppliers are encouraged to engage with ‘‘…whanau, hapu and iwi Mäori in your rohe early and meaningfully when developing your plans’’.
Three Waters is the forced divestment from councils of their water assets to one of four new agencies. Both the councils and iwi get to appoint an equal number of members to a regional representative group. This body appoints the board. This is where the triumph of ideology over engineering really kicks up a notch. Board members must, by law, have a collective knowledge, understanding and experience of the principles of the Treaty, matauranga, tikanga, and te ao Maori.
The new entities must adhere to Te Mana o te Wai and ‘‘understand, support, and enable the exercise of matauranga Maori, tikanga Maori, and kaitiakitanga’’.
If iwi believe their water rights have been compromised they can seek refuge in the Waitangi Tribunal, as they did when some energy companies were up for sale in 2012. (I was uncompromising in my support of the Maori Council’s intervention at the time.)
This is not happening, presumably because any such claim would fail. What possible claim can there be on dams and polyethylene pipes constructed and paid for in the 182 years since 1840? If we are being asked to enter into a new compact with Maori, where rights that do not exist under the Treaty are to be created, then this does need to be put before the public.
In its 2020 manifesto Labour wrote: ‘‘Labour will reform New Zealand’s drinking water and waste water system and upgrade water infrastructure to create jobs across the country.’’ There is no reference to cogovernance. Mahuta has no electoral, legal or Treaty mandate for her vision of cogovernance, and even the claims of poor water quality are based on weak foundations.
If she wants to remove from ratepayers their legal and property rights, perhaps it is she, and not David Seymour, who needs to be putting this issue to the public. After all, removing property rights without consent is what got us into the mess in the first place.