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.
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.
Therein is the heart of the issue, why did the government not tell us and allow debate.
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.
@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. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/476295/te-urewera-backcountry-huts-will-be-gone-by-christmas-critic-says
A more concrete example is Playcenter, which was demonstrably not democratic or for the benefit of all, not even of the majority of rõpū.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2022/10/02/playcentre-aotearoa-urgently-need-to-step-up-or-risk-igniting-co-governance-backlash/
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.”
YES . THAT . IS . EXACTLY . THE . POINT
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.
Gosh, couldn’t have said it better.
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.
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.
“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.
Water is an asset that has always existed.
I agree with wheel, the compensation has been pitiful frankly.
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.
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.
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
Agree Trev.
Pffftt!
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.
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.
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.
Hell, under this definition South Africa wasn’t racist either…… better nit tell the old man!
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;
http://capitalthinking.nz/nanaia-mahuta-and-the-disturbing-case-of-nepotism-conflict-of-interest-and-its-implications-for-new-zealand/
Three water is out and out theft.
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.
“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.