The Treaty of Waitangi and 3 waters Co-governance

Following my article of a few days ago the comments section was so full of hyperbolic ill informed comments from people who are willingly near to having a heart attack or stroke; I decided in the spirit of voluntary euthanasia to try and help them on their way. Jokes aside. Hopefully at least their worldviews will one day die out just by thinking about them for a few minutes. 
The key arguments against co-goverance in relation to three water are:
  • It’s racist
  • It’s anti democratic.
Both are rubbish:
  • It’s not racist as the ‘Maori’ representatives are there not because of their race but because the Treaty of Waitangi in plain language recognises iwi/hapu (tribal) property rights over their assets in New Zealand in Articles 2 and further guaranteed by Article 3. The co-governance representation reflects Maori tribes significant and ongoing property rights. 
  • It’s not racist because all voices are being heard equally and accountability is maintained equally through success being measured against whether the purpose is being achieved for all people regardless of race (e.g. clean water and sewage removal). The purpose is not being set so one race will indirectly benefit like what often happened in the past. If there were problems and somehow Maori were getting all the water, or judging by the past getting all the sewage, a national level reaction would occur. Government is still accountable and capable of action. 
  • It is democratic because local government democracy is failing to secure and deliver safe water and sewage removal. To fix the failure of local democracy the responsibility is being transferred to the national government level which is ultimately responsible and fully democratically accountable. Democracy continues, it’s just the place where the democracy occurs that is changing. The administration has been broken into regions and the asset owners equally consulted to make regional decisions. If problems arise the government can take action.  All voices will be heard.  
  • The levels of representation are justified not just because of the above reasons. And not just because of the existence of the Maori language translation of the Treaty which clearly shows the chiefs were not signing away sovereign tribal authority, But also because the practical reality is that an owner of a private property asset must be consulted with. It would be very strange for the owner of a private property asset to attend a negotiation over their asset, an ongoing and actual ownership, and have a whole pile of other people simply tell them what will happen.
The absurdity of the racism accusation is seen in the assumptions behind it. 
  • It assumes discrete clearly defined racial groups. This ignores the huge amount of racial mixing that has occurred. It would be more accurate to say the distinction in representation levels is not about race but about how people culturally identify. But even that is not true, it is about property rights.
  • It assumes Maori are a single identity and voice but we all know there are many very different voices in Maori and they will overlap with many other New Zealand voices.
  • It assumes race makes a difference but doesn’t say how. 
  • It ignores how the New Zealand identify is changing and people are taking on more of a Maori identity, with language phrases, haka, arts, clothing, symbols and culture. We are all becoming Pacific people, or more Polynesian; or all of us are more Maori. I suspect one day many people will consider themselves Maori; at least culturally Maori. However you want to call it there is a change and it’s good because it helps change the injustices of the past which persist into the present. The biggest risk to change is the mass immigration which is used to drive our economy; the risk is it will dilute that change. 
But I don’t know what the future holds.  Let’s be realistic there a risk that a bunch of elites will turn into a new aristocracy and Maori like all other New Zealanders will be simply divided into haves and have nots. Many changes in New Zealand and Maori societies are needed to stop that. At this point co-governance is a positive step to fixing the divisions of haves and have nots, and injustices from the past. 


  1. – Not true, not their assets. Again if this was about water _sources_ then it would be as you say.

    – Not true, there’s a mechanism for Iwi to override decisions.

    – Not true and not true. Most local democracies aren’t failing, and most people were not consulted and in fact this scheme is being forced regardless of any consultation.

    – Repeated argument, again not their assets.

    – True, the majority of Māori will not have increased representation – this is as you said a tribual authority issue. However race and culture are conflated in contemporary understandings of racism, so the argument from racism is understandable even if irrelevant.

    – True, but disingenuous as the majority of them won’t have increased representation.

    – You said this one yourself: cultural differences. We cannot continue the adversial bicultural bifurcation of society and then expect co-harmony.

    – This is at least partially forced by social engineering efforts – vs organically evolving, which rightly or wrongly is part of the resistance.

    – A bold conclusion with bold unsubstantiated assertions.

    Sorry, but your arguments are wholly unconvincing.

    • This, is why I love Russell Brand. I know. I just chucked this in there because fuck it. ( Love. Peace.)
      Russell Brand. YouTube and Rumble.
      “The takeover is happening – as farmers across New Zealand protest government plans to tax them for the gases that farm animals release, are we seeing yet another example of government bankrupting farmers under the guise of saving the planet?”

    • ‘This won’t get by the mods.’ _ thank you for your comments. Your first bullet point says it all. You say it is not their assets. What does TOW Article 2 say? I think it is pretty clear. AndlLocal democracy is failing e.g. Wellington had huge sewage pipe bursts in the middle of town. Small towns can’t afford proper sewerage systems. On and on.
      I’ll leave it at that.

      • Yes, TOW act 2 is clear on property rights. Māori corporate Iwi structures do not own water infrastructure – it’s not their assets.

        • Correct TWGBTM, “Māori corporate Iwi structures do not own water infrastructure”
          New Zealanders own the water and it is it is shared with NZ’s Treaty Partners.

          I know you righties hate sharing. You become rich when neolibarals like ACT, sold off state assets. Then, you pull the ladder up and when people dare to get above their station and want to share in your neoliberal fantasy for trickle-down wealth for everyone. You cry “No-fair!, or “Uppity Maoris excluded”

          It’s racist and it’s myopic!

          Cloud Ocean Water in Christchurch bought Belfast Freezing Works and used their water license to bottle water by the billions of litres and sell it. That’s more corrupt than Maori as Treaty Partners not getting half the share of the profits from selling New Zealand’s natural resources. Did Native American – First Nation people get a say in the great water theft of California?

          Now we have a similar corporatization of water resource in NZ. White racist Kiwis hate it – because they see it as equal rights for brown Kiwis! Farmers hate it because it means that they can keep existing water quotas for irrigation! Neoliberal Political Parties in NZ that want to sell off that resource for the benefit of their rich mates and rich corporations and they hate 3 =Waters!

          Racists hate it!
          Farmers hate it!
          Neoliberals parties like ACT and their sister party National hate it!

          Great idea – they say!
          Get rid of public, Te Tiriti Partner co-owned resource that is for the good of all New Zealanders.

          Let’s let National and ACT and all its racist allies scupper 3 Waters and sell off water to “Mum and Dad investors”, like John Key did with hydro power companies. Mum and Da investors – aka the share market.

          Sounds fair to me – NOT!

        • So land is an asset?
          Air above that asset?
          Water around that asset?
          Water on that asset?
          Minerals under that asset?

          Fucking neoliberal hypocrites!

      • Feel free to take this all down a few notches Stephen, pretty sure the Greens will already have your Virtue Signal Wings in the post already.

  2. Maybe we need to have plain picture painted on how this co-governance will look like in our society.

    So far all we have is a grainy idea that may work. Set it in concrete the structure on how New Zealander’s will be governed.

    No use going on about racism, Maori this, Maori that, TOW obligations, Pakeha as second class citizens, or even “All animals are equal, some are more equal than others” crap.

    Spell out just how this co-governance will look like in real life and how it will function !!!! Simple.

      • “Following my article of a few days ago the comments section was so full of hyperbolic ill informed comments from people who are willingly near to having a heart attack or stroke; I decided in the spirit of voluntary euthanasia to try and help them on their way. Jokes aside.”

        And that’s why your day job was as an IRD penny pincher and not a comedian, right Steve?

        • Don’t think humour is allowed at the IRD.
          Denigrating people who comment on your posts is a display of arrogance.

          • So Mr Arrogant BTF?
            Does the IRD know about your shill payments from Dirty Politics 2.3?

            Start puckering up BTF. The IRD are all-seeing!

            No humour from me either, Bob the First, I currently have my humour gland in a pickle jar on the mantelpiece!

            How’s it going to be, sharing a jail cell with Butch McDick for tax fraud for not properly claiming payments from your political masters?
            I hope your right-wing shill payments will pass the ‘nudge-nudge-wink-wank-money-in-the-bank scrutiny’?

            In the words of Liam Neeson – “Good luck! Bob the First”

      • We are told government are capable?
        We all know the current Labour Government are incapable evidenced by the 3Waters fiasco and a multitude of other issues including the abandonment of one person one vote.

    • Sounds like a great idea Gerrit.
      Homeowners paying for water, sewage and stormwater assets.
      Neolibs like Seymour and Aloha won’t like that!
      Recipe for right-wingers who denigrate 3 waters will end up where Aaron Gilmore and Jami-Lee Ross ended up.
      “I feel as sorry for ‘national’ party supporters as I do for the Trumpanzees. There’s some sort of moral and rationale deficiency”
      You want to quote Animal Farm Gerrit, you are all like Napoleon and all the other pigs at the trough:
      “Four legs good, two legs BETTER! Four legs good, two legs BETTER! Four legs good, two legs BETTER!”

      Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

      November 1943-February 1944

      You and your ilk represent and support greedy pigs Gerrit, just like the other neoliberal ACT and National pig-men-men-pigs.

  3. @Stephen Minto you characterising the whole argument against 3 Waters by the worst of it’s proponents.

    I agree that the Māori version of ToW should take precedence, that Tikanga principles are better then for instance, neoliberal ones. I also agree in the ideal of co-governance but not the way it is being implemented. 

I completely disagree that:
“all voices are being heard equally and accountability is maintained equally through success being measured against whether the purpose is being achieved for all people”

    For example with 3 Waters at an operational level there are the mana o te wai statements, which can only be issued by (elite) Iwi/hapu. They are binding and have no limits or checks and balances. They do not have to be rational, consider conflicts of interest or even be for the common good.”

    In short those statements can do whatever they like, one could say ‘lassiez faire’.

    As illustrations of what could happen is the Te Urewera hut demolition. It remains to be seen if the huts are replaced but one suspects if that was the intent, phasing old huts out while phasing in new ones in would be the better approach. Even Tūhoe kaumātua disagree with what is being done.

    A more concrete example is Playcenter, which was demonstrably not democratic or for the benefit of all, not even of the majority of rõpū.

    You place a late caveat for your entire argument:

    “Let’s be realistic there a risk that a bunch of elites will turn into a new aristocracy and Maori like all other New Zealanders will be simply divided into haves and have nots.”


    I’d go further and say the current implementations seems designed to expedite it.

    There are historical property rights to address and I have no doubt there are good intentions and highly altruistic leaders. However referring back to ‘lassiez faire’, I see no reason to believe that, on the whole, Māori capitalists will behave any differently from Pākeha capitalists nor look after the majority, even the majority of their own Iwi unless limits, checks and balances are put in place.

There are racists in the room but you glossed over the key problems and are following the establishment playbook of obscuring an argument that is really about about class with an argument about race which is generally done to taint opponents as ethically suspect and silence discussion.

      • Tui, I love the erudite and reasoned way in which you answer OPs premises, slings and arrows.

        A pity our own representatives dont have your ability and lets face it, it’s a delight watching you stick it to our all time favourite poster. “There are none so blind who will not see” accompanied by ‘a little bit of learning ….”

    • Reply to Tui; In your last paragraph you accuse me of making an argument about race rather than class. I did no such thing. My whole point on race is that it is not relevant. i.e. the backlash on race is unsubstantiated.
      Your comments are full of operational detail that might have been more relevant for the select committee. I make quite clear that the government can still take charge if issues are unjust. i.e. democracy still exists. You’re taking operational matters and hypotheticals and saying they all must be sorted out now. You would never do that for any other major change.
      On Urewera. I disagree with the huts being burned but its not my land. Like when a private company makes changes. Disagreeing just happens all the time.
      Your points do not change my points; i.e. that by itself co-governance is not racist, and is not undemocratic. You just point out some operational risks and issues.

  4. Thank you TWGBTM or all points well made…all I can add is I don’t see why we all need to pretend to be Maori. It’s not who we are. BUT I am supportive of bi-culturism in our society for those who want to participate.

  5. None of these assets existed when the TOWwas signed. They are infrastructure not taonga
    Only Maori can modify the structure and aims of 3 Waters
    All administrators must show clear understanding of principles of TOW
    Only Maori can demand money
    The owners, ratepayers, have none of the rights of ownership
    It is theft without compensation to empower the tribal elite
    It absolutely follows the He Pua Pua blueprint
    How can you call it anything else but racist

    • Indeed.
      It’s all very well for the author to conflate Maori culture and Maori race, but to be part of an iwi – a select few of who will have ultimate control of 3 waters, you have to be able trace your bloodline to that iwi, no matter how much you “feel” the culture.
      Extra rights for certain people of a certain race as determined by genetics.

      That is racist in its very principle.

      There is no co governance in the treaty, it’s an assertion of equal rights and British sovereignty.
      The author argument that property rights means co governance is bonkers. Property rights gives Maori the ability to use their own land or sell (as many Maori did) just the same as me on my land, if I’m king of my own castle it doesn’t mean I get a co governance arrangement. I still have to operate under the laws of the land.

      Even if any of the authors arguments held water – which they don’t- it is a gross corruption of our democracy to change its constitutional arrangement without a debate and a clear mandate from the people.

      • Reply to Keepcalmcarryon – My point is that the Treaty was with Maori but the rights assigned are property rights. So just because Maori hold those property rights doesn’t make it racist that they hold them.
        You own your farm, or land, and if you are white or pakeha or whatever race you may be. It doesn’t make your ownership and decision making over that land racist.
        But that is the argument you are making. i.e. They are Maori, they own property rights over water. Because we will co-govern with them over their property, water, that is racist preference for them.
        Like you, Maori must still follow the laws of the land. Like you, you have opportunities to influence the laws of the land. It’s just the way have maori can influence the laws is slightly changed, because the Treaty gives them the rights as owner.

      • ‘a clear understanding of the principles of TOW’ is simply not possible for as long as the Waitungi Tribunal is the generator of principles – new principles can be created at any time.

    • “None of these assets existed when the Treaty was signed”. “It’s theft without compensation”

      I would be careful talking about theft and compensation. While there are probably examples of stolen land returned by the Crown there are others where the apology and the compensation wouldn’t go anywhere near fair or current value, would they. If you would like to reset the clock to when the treaty was signed, I don’t think the Pakeha would do so well financially.

      • Wheel I agree its strange language coming from our colonial past. The commonwealth was made up of theft, pillage and murder. All for the sake of mother England. Even the home nations, Wales , Scotland and Ireland weren’t spared as per the industrial revolution and the civil war in Ireland that lasted over a hundred years “ a lot of it in modern times “ this Irish war was all about the wealthy gentry keeping hold of their vast estates stolen from the original land owners (sound familiar).at all costs Their answer was to divide the country, cause a famine which caused the scatter of the inhabitants of the country far and wide it’s called divide and rule. What are we afraid of ? missing out on something that was never really ours in the first place. The chickens are coming home to roost and its about time.

    • Reply to Tribal Scot – If you lease farm land to someone and they build a dam or plant a shelter belt. When the lease expires do you expect the lessee to retain control of those assets? I think not. You would have written up a contract on these issues. Well the Treaty is a contract and it gives water to Maori (like a farm) and those added assets are still available to maori who are only co-owner. You could even say as New Zealand citizens Maori were already co-owners, just like you still are. So what has happened is the administrative status of their ownership has simply changed to be formally. maori are New Zealand and they have some property rights given under the Treaty. There is no theft.

  6. I’ve served on a board under a type of co-governance model but stood down as we were unable to fulfil our mandate. I also spoke at a hearing recently that was run under a co-governance model with three pakeha panel members and three Maori.

    In my experience co-governance is a nice idea but has a number of flaws which prevent it from working.
    For example:
    Manawhenua are appointed simply to represent the interests of their own tribe, rather than carry out the general work of a board/authority etc. In my experience almost all of the work falls to the remainder of the board which creates an impossibly high work load for the remainder.

    Iwi board members do not have to declare or manage conflicts of interest – personal or organisational. This leads to tribally appointed board members advocating for commercial interests over the boards mandate. The iwi members are only accountable to the iwi whom appointed them and they can’t be removed for poor performance or even corruption .

    Another key flaw of co-governance is iwi board members speak and vote as one. Tribal representatives are simply on a board to convey the view of the tribe. That only takes one person to convey that position not half of the board…

    Co-governance in hearings leads to unfair outcomes. In the case of the hearing I attended two of the three iwi panel members were there to represent manawhenua who has a commercial interest in the case. Given that the chair was Maori there was simply no chance of a fair hearing. Any attempts to discuss iwi panel members conflicts of interest were quickly closed down by the chair.

    Having experienced co-governance in action I really do doubt that it can work.

    • Reply to Neil – interesting experiences, particularly the not following the mandates problem. It’s very hard for Maori leadership not to have conflicts of interest because their business community is so small and often draws from the same people . Mind you private business is full of conflicts of interest and they talk about Chinese walls. But are they real? Co-governance needs to be seen as a work in progress. The issue is the Treaty sets up co-governance and that is our word and must be respected.

  7. I don’t think you understand the Mana o-te Wai statements at all. You seem stuck at a theoretical level, not what can actually practically happen.

    Any one iwi in a given water region can write a statement however they like and the water authority must abide by it. One iwi could write one and another iwi writes a contradictory one, and both are solely for Maori interests in opposition to other ethnic groups.

    This is clearly possible and it happened with the recent play centre national elections – 91.75% majority vote to change Playcentre Aotearoa’s constitution has been overruled by 2 of the organisation’s roopu, in contravention to the other 2 roopu and the wider Pakeha governing body.

    How on earth is that democratic?

    This is exactly the same type of situation as can happen with 3 Waters, and so fails your democratic tests.

  8. In a really short sentence can you explain why someone who is Owner of something would agree to ‘co-governance?

    • Reply to Reactionary Bratwurst – because the Treaty is seen as a partnership.
      Otherwise I agree. In theory they should have full control.
      But all lands and assets are subject to laws and rules. Like with a car the only absolute right you have as an owner is who can get in the car. The rest is governed by road rules and warrant of fitness etc.

      • “because the Treaty is seen as a partnership”

        An example of how the passive voice is used to obfuscate and avoid responsibility. Who sees the treaty as a partnership? Robin Cooke described the treaty as “akin to a partnership”, and his novel interpretation has been seized upon by activists. How likely is it that the dominant military and economic power of the 19th century would go into partnership with 100,000 indigenous people on the other side of the world? That idea is even more fanciful than Margaret Thatcher’s fiction of Britain’s “special relationship” with US in the late 20th century. Superpowers don’t do partnerships or special relationships.

  9. Maori and Pakeha are the same in that one voice cannot speak for either. This has recently been seen in the conflict between the local Maori about the huts in the Tuhoe area. How will the voices of Maori be chosen especially in the North .In the South Island we only have one main tribe so not hard . Maori should have a voice on all aspects of our society but their voice should not carry more weight than any other effected groups including Asian and Pakeha

  10. Flawed premised based that all Maori are the same and agree.

    Who is Maori? How do you account the majority of Maori are more pakeha than Maori, flawed premise all pakeha are the same and agree, just like Maori are all the same and agree. When Maori have kids with other races are they all Maori too – could we have someone who never lived in NZ, have land and asset claims and rights on NZ assets and land just by birth and finding 1% Maori in ancestry?

    Constant virtue signalling aka speaking Te reo is considered more important than actually being Maori aka race relations choice – don’t think has ever been Maori race relations person in spite of Labeen being in a position to make it happen but failed.

    I person 1 vote. There is a reason for that, you can’t roll everyone up by self determined race, as being exactly the same.

  11. Where racial or ethnic or tribal or religious affiliations are inserted into the political realm what happens? We’ve plenty of historical and a few current examples – none of them good. The dysfunctional Lebanon where each group is out for their faction – a festering power play – and no one is looking out for the people and the country in general.

    Co governance is a seriously bad idea in principle and in practice, it’s surprising that someone that fought actual apartheid could think it’s a good idea for New Zealand. What’s all that about?

    • Reply to David and George – My point was race is not being inserted with co-governance. The Treaty assigned property rights to maori as owners. Not because of race.
      It strange you think race is being inserted now but never look to see most assets in New Zealand are owned by white people, or european races, who inserted themselves into New Zealand. But that’s not racist? It’s only racist when we try and recognise private property rights for maori. Rights as provided by the Treaty, as written by white or european people.

  12. Hear me out. A Maori-owned bucket full of pristine Waikato river water with a wooden ladle in it dropped next to every New World and we call it racist.

  13. I’m all for cleaner water, better managed. But I just can’t see why the government merged this with co-governance. I’d never really heard of co-governance until three waters.

    Why the secrecy surrounding it? Something as important as co-governance needs to be talked about out in the open. How does it work? Not hidden under cloak and sneaked in via something like three waters.

    We’ve been paying rates for decades. We all collectively own it and now our water infrastructure is going to be stolen from us. We’re not allowed to talk about it without being labeled as racist.

    Two of Nanaia Mahutas family co-wrote the He Puapu document. Conflict of interest? Well it kinda smells;

    Three water is out and out theft.

    • It’ is out and out theft
      3 Waters is part of the secret Labour Government agenda,we all know that.
      It’s just the beginning of more to come.

  14. I think you had better ‘check’ out you pakeha mate here. He seems to be the big swinging dick in;
    3 Waters
    3 Harbours (Manukau,Waitemata-Hauraki Gulf & Tikapa-Firth of Thames) Treaty Settlements yet to come.

    Who is the architect of 3 Waters, 3 Harbours and all things “Maori” and who is Paul Beverley?

    Paul Beverley, of Buddle Findlay, specialises in the RMA, co-governance design in Treaty settlement processes, and advising local authorities on Treaty and Māori law issues. According to the Buddle Findlay website, he has extensive experience collaborating and negotiating with Māori and advising on Māori law issues. His particular specialty is designing and negotiating co-governance, co-management and relationship frameworks between the Crown, local government and Māori.

    According to Anne Gibson, Property Editor of the New Zealand Herald, in an article on Beverley published 13 May 2017, “….in the past few years, the refrain sounding loudest in his life is redress for tangata whenua. That means addressing the wrongs of the past, helping Maori groups negotiate, then draft Treaty of Waitangi deeds of settlement as one of the Crown team representing the Justice Ministry’s Office of Treaty Settlements”.

    Further insight into the views of Beverley can be found in his involvement as a participant in the Constitutional and Legal experts’ hui held by the government to discuss Crown-Maori Relations (20 March 2018). Notes produced by the participants include the following points:

    There is a need to move beyond a consultation mind set to real partnership and engagement.
    The Treaty is clear that there are two peoples in a partnership, with roles and responsibilities.
    A concrete agenda/work programme should include the following: constitutional position of the Treaty; local government status; capacity and capability building – central and local government; institutional/systemic discrimination; water; shared outcomes; putting partnership into practice (e.g., the Department of Conservation has some useful approaches – local level solutions in particular).
    Māori representation on local authorities – if moving towards Māori wards then other changes also need to be put in place to support them and for substantive long-term change and community understanding. They will fail to make effective change on their own.
    A clear conceptual framework over the top is required, that defines local government in NZ and its roles and responsibilities in the Treaty/Māori space.
    The Government needs a plan to educate communities, including exemplars of how people are positively relating, how the Crown and Māori are relating, the benefits for communities and the nation, and that it is not racist for the government to prioritise results for Māori.
    Proprietary rights need to be defined with reference to two systems of law. There is a need to understand tikanga as law, rights and constitutionally.
    Undertake a stocktake by running a Treaty ruler over legislation, regulation and policies.
    Decolonisation required to allow a Māori lens to become first nature for government.

    And again, for clues as to what Beverley thinks, see his paper entitled ‘A stronger voice for Māori in natural resource governance and management’, which he presented to the NZ Planning Institute conference 2015 – ‘Back to the Future’.

    Paul Beverley claims that Māori have a deep and innate relationship with natural resources, saying that significant advances are being made to enable the expression of this relationship. In his paper he focussed on one of these advances – the arrangements delivered through Treaty of Waitangi settlements, giving the following four examples of Treaty settlement arrangements:

    the tūpuna maunga arrangements in the Tāmaki Collective settlement;
    the Waikato River settlement;
    the Tūhoe – Te Urewera settlement; and
    the Whanganui River settlement.
    Paul Beverley acted for Auckland Council in the negotiations leading to the new Tupuna Maunga Authority. According to Beverley the Tāmaki Collective settlement reflects a significant reconnection between the Iwi of the Tāmaki Collective and their tūpuna maunga, which includes a detailed set of arrangements that provide a prominent voice for those Iwi in the future governance and management of, and planning for, those tūpuna maunga. Beverley was quoted in the NZ Herald 13 May 2017, saying:

    “Those maunga are the embodiment of the iwi ancestors so the law now recognises that through the vesting of those volcanic cones back in the iwi, and the Tupuna Maunga (co-governance) Authority. It’s a really important point in the journey.”

    Paul Beverley acted for the Crown on the Waikato River claim, which resulted in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 and other legislation, recognising the river as a tupuna or ancestor with mana, and in turn representing the mauri or life force of the tribe. The Waikato River arrangements provide for the establishment of the Waikato River Authority, a co-governance authority comprising five members appointed by the river iwi and five members appointed by the Crown/local authorities. The Waikato River Authority is responsible for the vision and strategy for the Waikato River. The Vision and Strategy is a planning document with very powerful effect, in fact it is incorporated directly into the Waikato regional policy statement, and it overrides an RMA national policy statement in the event of conflict. Decision-makers under a wide range of legislation are required to consider and give legal effect to the vision and strategy.

    Beverley is also active in spreading the co-governance net wider

    He is one of the three authors of the Hauraki Gulf Forum Governance Review and Recommendations, presented to the HGF June 2016, which recommended the 50/50 co-governance model, with greater powers.

    He was also, from 2015, the ‘Independent’ Chair of the Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari (Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) stakeholder working group. The Sea Change Plan also strongly pushes the ‘co-governance with iwi’ arrangement.

    Is this the person you want to represent you in the battle for control of the foreshore and seabed in the Auckland region? If not, contact your ward councillor, and Mayor Goff, demanding a change of legal counsel, and explain why this is necessary.

    • To summarise for you dummies. What he’s saying is that he wants the corporate mowrees to get a piece of the action too!


  15. The whole 3waters proposal is fucked up. Labour, true to form, fucked up a great simple concept – fixing the pipes. What they should have done is told the Maori causus “No, CG is not happening now, if ever. We’re just gonna fix the pipes.” Aaaah well, more to undo for National. The first 100 days will just be spent on undoing of fucked up concepts.

    • Arrrh no its not. Why? Because the rich northern hemisphere billionaires have got skin in the game.

      Its 8 Waters now. (Join the dots!)

      3Waters+2-Fresh Aquifers-Geothermal+3Waters,Harbours-Manukau-Waitemata-Hauraki-Firth of Thames-Tikapa.

      All have 35 year contracts for services to be outsourced in the legislation.

      Blackrock Inc & Goldman Sachs, have control of just over a billion dollars of the NZ Superfund.
      Have a guess what that will be used for? investments & dividends milked from NZ taxpayers and the NZ Superfunds to pay for the water services provided by them and their preferred suppliers. Thats the ‘cream’.

      Think of Enron, then you should get what I’m saying.

      Because this is all connected to Robo’s … 30 year Green Bonds @ 4%+.
      So does that mean Blackrock Inc can hedge their investment(s) in the 35yr water services contracts with 3+2+3 Waters legislation & Treaty Settlements?

      It doesnt matter whether you’re brown, white green ect … If you own the contracted water services, you control the money that pays for the contracts! NZ taxpayers/ratepayers will be on the hook for $185b-$400b (est) water services contracts for up to 35 years.

  16. I come from a mixed race family, ngati mutunga.

    Whatever the merits of three waters may be, the undeniable fact is that lasting change in NZ comes only by bringing people with you, proponents of three waters have spent 2/3 years of this parliamentary term failing to persuade people.

    Time has run out. If the govt passes these reforms in the next twelve months all that will happen is a change of government who will immediately reverse the new reforms, making passing them counterproductive.

    It’d be far better to send three waters back to the drawing board and pass them in 2024 if the govt gets reelected because if they are passed and labour loses they won’t just be overturned Maori issues and co-goverance will be blamed for why labour went from majority to opposition in three years and labour will not advocate for Maori for a generation.

    As someone who doesn’t want a national govt I’d be spontaneously combusting if an issue that immediately got overturned cos the left the treasury benches.

    I’m glad the author stated Maori aren’t a hive mind and are actually people, however he displays massive ignorance of his knowledge of Maori if he doesn’t realize that Maori already have a have and have not asset owning class identical to pakeha.

    By Maori for Maori is usually wellington code for by rich Maori for poor Maori and rich Maori don’t speak for poor Maori anymore than John key speaks for poor pakeha. Rich Maori don’t know what it’s like in state care or on dole or to struggle with medical bills yet it’s rich Maori who seem to constantly get contracts to run services like this for poor Maori.

    Rich Maori have been screwing poor Maori over for centuries and are more nepotistic than the Tory’s. Rich Maori judge and hate poor Maori.

    Co-goverance empowers rich Maori who nepotistically control iwis not the poor Maori they sneer out.

    As for creating a separate non governmental water body, my biggest fear apart from it being privatized or user pays being introduced my biggest fear is that this non governmental body will be the water equivalent of the reserve bank, I’m scared we will have politicians say they can’t act or get involved in the governance of water because it is an independent body and so refuse to do anything when their are problems or if the body privatizes assets.

    Three waters is absolutely imperfect and complicated and pretending it’s not is not winning anyone over. As for co-goverance, the cold hard truth is that in NZ a majority of the electorate doesn’t recognize the Maori translation of the treaty in 2022 and take issue with it being used constitutionally.

    Wellingtonians and the left think that NZ is both far more mature and progressive on treaty issues than it currently is and also too immature and regressive to debate treaty issues.

  17. “local government democracy is failing to secure and deliver safe water and sewage removal”.

    When NZ was a somewhat poorer country in the 1960s 70s 80s local councils provided safe water and sewage removal. Its bs that cant be done now by commuities richer than ever before. Water supply in all the major towns and cities is safe. There has only been one notable unsafe drinking water event and that was 10years ago in Hawkes Bay – simply an outlier. The water infrastructure assets around the country are community owned. People arent stupid and not its not rascist to notice when a political group makes an asset grab from the community. Todays other TDB article by Martyn Bradbury details how the Auckland community is being softened up for an asset grab by another political group the 1%.

    • Reply to Joseph – Wellington has had sewage pipes in the middle of town burst shutting down large areas. Because conservative councils said they were spending on infrastructure when they weren’t. They lied all the time. Rates will go up hugely.

      • How will the new water authority get funding to fix the water assets? I’ve heard that the new structure will enable fee charging for water. Won’t we be simply paying someone else? I’ve seen no analysis on household costs for either the status quo or the new system. All I hear is ‘rates increases’. Either way, the consumer will pay, right?

      • Tell us Stephen – why does the iwiocracy need to be involved in fixing the water assets. Do iwi leaders have any special expertise in hydro engineering? Three Waters has never been about water quality.

    • Joseph don’t unsafe beaches count, boil water notices after floods, near misses we probably know nothing about. Sewers blowing up in Wellington . No fluoride in our water resulting in rotten teeth and expensive dental treatment for the poorest in our community. Havelock North should NEVER have happened in a modern society end of story.

  18. So!

    Who’s taking bets!

    Nanaia as the Local Government minister appoints a Statutory manager to Auckland council within the next 6 or so months!?

    Its a Masterstroke of a plan!

    Remember Tainui – Waikato still have their treaty claim for Auckland yet to commence! That was lodged in December 2020. And then there’s the 3 Harbours treaty claims too to come!

    Tainui – Waikato are a party to all of those settlements!

    So why not take the ‘Gold Plated’ ivory tower as well!

Comments are closed.