Labour sinking as courts trump iwi co-governance
Last week, the High Court stopped the misguided destruction of huts and bridges located in the former Urewera National Park. It is a co-governance area managed by the Department of Conservation and the Tū hoe tribal organisation, Te Uru Taumatua (TUT). A case of judicial tut, tut.
When the Tū hoe settlement was concluded with the National Government in 2014, it included the termination of Crown ownership of Urewera National Park. Similar to the Whanganui River iwi settlement, politicians conferred upon this area its own legal personality.
New Zealand has a host of companies and trusts with their own legal personality.
Generally, these entities carry the same rights and responsibilities as a person. If you are looking after such entities a legal duty of care is required and your conduct can be judicially tested.
The management of this 2000ha Urewera wilderness was vested in a statutory board, with membership split equally between the Crown and Tū hoe.
However, that has changed and Tū hoe now hold the majority of board positions.
The iwi organisation approved the destruction of the Urewera huts.
Fortunately for the locals and the public, the High Court has landed a blow for common sense and affirmed that cogovernance is not God’s law. Most importantly, the rights of the public cannot be pushed aside in favour of dreamy aspirations of Mā ori sovereignty.
Co-governance excesses have also been on display in Auckland.
In 2014, ownership of most of the volcanic cones, maunga, of Auckland was transferred to the Tū puna Maunga Authority. It comprises equal membership from iwi and the Auckland Council.
Not unlike the Tū hoe experience, this co-governance body has paid insufficient attention to matters of public interest. It decided to eradicate exotic trees from the cone landscape. Symbols of colonialism, one presumes.
Although the Super City is required to deliver operational outcomes for this cogovernance cone body, officials did not engage with the local community to the satisfaction of the Court of Appeal.
The upshot is that iwi ecological decolonisation efforts have been ruled out of order.
These two judicial examples reveal that co-governance can easily become a platform of discord — especially if the Crown/council appointees are not robust in their defence of the public interest.
The iwi approaches these matters with a clear agenda: the expansion of influence and future leverage for political and economic purposes.
These two judicial encounters show what lurks in the pool of Three Waters as Labour pushes on with its cogovernance agenda.
Addressing a select committee report, Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta was steadfast, saying people have lost sight of what matters in stormwater, taps and sewage plants.
Shrouded in her commentary are new mana o te wai legal instruments, local iwi ordinances that will bind the new Three Waters corporations. Courts will have to make sense of these edicts. Are they a new iwi water consent regime?
Despite vain ministerial hopes, voters have not lost sight of this minefield, rather it is firmly in scope. Labour will squeeze the legislation through this parliamentary portal. However, all passageways have an entrance and an exit. Electoral ushers will show them the latter.
The minister is undeterred, declaring she has been the only minister for more than 20 years brave enough to come up with solutions.
Given so many councils now have elected Mā ori representatives, why does she need to give iwi veto rights over the future governance of these council assets? If one doubts this potential outcome, simply look at the judicial decisions concerning Tū hoe and volcanic cone co-governance.
Premises and staff are already being secured to implement the Three Waters reform, a sign that Minister Mahuta intends to damn the torpedoes and proceed full steam ahead.
Overloading any vessel, such as the Labour waka, preparing to motor into rough seas is perilous. With precious little freeboard it is nigh impossible to manoeuvre, something that is very handy in politics.
Next year, the Prime Minister will need every one of her backbenchers on the electoral bilge pumps.
However, not even that will save her from being swamped by the deadweight of iwi co-governance and dissolution of public interest. That verdict will be delivered by voters and not jurists.