Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
This is why you don't take a good idea, and bundle in a bunch of undemocratic bullshit.
There is no widespread opposition to water reform, there is, however, widespread opposition to co-governance of our water infrastructure. Three waters would have been a relatively unremarkable bill if the co-governance aspect hadn't been included.
Have you heard about the saga of the water bottling plant in Christchurch? Iwi involvement was one of the reasons the international export of our water was stopped in that situation. Indigenous representation in governance of our water resources is one of our best tools to protect it from global corporate interests.
I never really understood why that was such a terrible thing, the amount of water being used was actually not much at all.
But think of the carbon emissions and plastic waste involved in shipping water halfway aroudn the world when there are perfectly suitable water sources local to those consumers.
The carbon footprint of ocean shipping isn't that much. Besides, I don't see why Iwi should have any more of a say on non - local issues like that than any other person.
We've talked about this before and it's a shame to see you still parroting the same flawed interpretation of co-governance.
It is not "antidemocratic" because it has nothing to do with any democratic process. Co-governance describes a strategic oversight group that informs and guides the working group, and helps select qualified personnel go run it. It has nothing to do with elections, and everything to do with acknowledging the Crown's responsibilities under Te Tiriti. It is, to use the words of National Māori Development spokesperson Tama Potaka, something that "has been around for nearly 20 years now and generally work very well".
the same flawed interpretation of co-governance.
Just because you've explained your interpretation of it, doesn't mean I accept your interpretation. Co governance hands an inordinate amount of power to a group of people, due to the circumstances of their birth, therefore it is undemocratic.
The reasoning behind this transfer of power is tenuous at best, as well.
It hands no power to them. It hands half of an advisory role to Iwi. Even if your interpretation is correct, they would not have the numbers to actually do anything without support from other members. They are not handed absolute control of the body. They aren't even a part of the management group.
It isn't "my interpretation", it's just the fact of how the system works. It isn't "undemocratic" because they advisory group involved is not elected to begin with, so it has nothing to do with democracy.
The fact that this setup already exists in places around NZ, for many years, and has lead to exactly zero problems, should indicate that perhaps it isn't quite what the fearmongers portray it as.
ETA
The reasoning behind this transfer of power is tenuous at best, as well.
There is no "transfer of power" as the advisory bodies that are proposed don't exist yet. Even if they did, their power is in suggesting qualified personnel, guiding direction of the water board, and overseeing their work. They have no power themselves.
Also, Te Tiriti guaranteed Māori control over teir taonga. Freshwater is taonga, and thus if we were to truly follow New Zelealand's founding document, absolute control of all freshwater should, by rights, be handed back to Iwi. Given that nothing of this sort is suggested, I think it's actually quite reasonable.
Your interpretation of this is so far removed from reality I don't even know where to start.
Lets see.
The role is advisory. The regional representative group (the members of which are equally appointed by the territorial authority and by mana whenua) 'inform and guide' the board managing the water authority. In particular, their strategic goals and performance expectations must "inform and guide the decisions and actions of the board of the entity" and the board "must give effect to the statement of strategic and performance expectations for the entity when performing its functions" (my emphasis). There is no direct control over the board or their actions, but the board must keep the strategic statements in mind when performing their actions. So the role is advisory.
The role is not undemocratic. None of the members are elected, so the matter has nothing to with democracy. None of the appointments are made by public vote or consultation. Therefore, your claim it is undemocratic is false by definition. Additionally to this, all decisions are made on a 75% majority, so even if the mana whenua members of the advisory group decide to try and cut off all water to white people or something (who knows what people like you are actually afraid of), they can't unless half the other members also agree with this.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees control of freshwater assets by Maori. In particular, Te Tiriti states, in Article Two, that Maori "Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa". This guarantees Maori undisterbed possession of their property and taonga undisturbed for as long as they wish to retain them. In 2012, the Waitangi Tribunal ruled that Maori traditionally exercised authority and control over water and over its use in a way that is akin to exerting common law property rights. Further, it is clear that fresh water was considered taonga by Maori. So either way you look at it, Te Tiriti guarantees control and ownership over these features. Obviously this hasn't happened, so giving back to mana whenua an equal share in the guiding advisory group is perhaps the bare minimum for the Crown to restore its obligations under Te Tiriti.
So no, I'm sorry, but "my interpretation" isn't "so far removed from reality", it is, in fact, the reality of the situation.
The role is not undemocratic. None of the members are elected, so the matter has nothing to with democracy.
How did you type that out without realizing how stupid it sounds?
Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees control of freshwater assets by Maori.
No, it doesn't.
This guarantees Maori undisterbed possession of their property and taonga undisturbed for as long as they wish to retain them
It's not theirs to own.
the Waitangi Tribunal ruled that Maorii traditionally exercised authority and control over water and over its use in a way that is akin to exerting common law property rights.
How? They didn't create dams or divert or control the water in any meaningful way.
Further, it is clear that fresh water was considered taonga by Maori.
What didn't they consider sacred? Did they consider the land my house sits on Taonga?
Your interpretation of this is a fantasy, based on some incredibly tenuous arguments.
How did you type that out without realizing how stupid it sounds?
Democracy: "Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives."
In what respect does an advisory group, consisting entirely of unelected members, with no direct power or rule, appointed by two different groups, relate to democracy? We are not talking about government, council, or some other system of rule of a country.
No, it doesn’t.
Leading Treaty scholars, lawyers, and the Tribunal itself all agree that it does. I'm happy to say you're wrong about this.
It’s not theirs to own.
Just because you don't think it so does not make it the truth. The Tribunal has ruled that it is, therefore, it is with all respects to the Crown and Law.
How? They didn’t create dams or divert or control the water in any meaningful way.
If you have a problem with the Tribunal ruling, perhaps you should become a lawyer, study the treaty and Maori culture and history, then get a hearing to change this ruling. For now, though, we should take the experts decision on this.
What didn’t they consider sacred? Did they consider the land my house sits on Taonga?
Ignoring the racist undertone, this is not our place to say. We do not get to dictate what another culture, that was here first remember, decides is important. I am not Maori, and I'm willing to bet you are not either. I'm certain you wouldn't start telling Germans or Chinese what they consider culturally important and sacred in their own countries now would you?
Your interpretation of this is a fantasy, based on some incredibly tenuous arguments.
My "interpretation" is entirely based on facts, the actual rulings by leading authorities, the actual legislation, the actual situation and compassion. You are the one basing your interpretation faulty information.
The Waitangi Tribunal makes recommendations that are not legally binding, remember? We are free to ignore them.
And, with the ever growing list of things that are allegedly Taonga that we should hand over control to, I think it's time we did just that.
The Waitangi Tribunal makes recommendations that are not legally binding, remember? We are free to ignore them.
Yes you are right, I didn't explain that point clearly. I meant laws are regularly based on Tribunal rulings. In this case, the legislation around co-governance references the tribunal ruling (or at least it was involved, I can't recall the exact wording off hand). In other words, the Tribunal gives the expert decision about some aspect of the Treaty. I'm willing to listen to them, since they are, y'know, the experts.
And, with the ever growing list of things that are allegedly Taonga that we should hand over control to, I think it’s time we did just that.
Why? Ignoring everything else entirely, what is your great fear that allowing mana whenua to have an advisory role in the water boards will result in? What do you think will happen?
Additionally:
allegedly Taonga
You have exactly zero right to tell any Maori person what is and isn't Taonga. The Treat clearly states that Maori will retain rights to things they consider taonga. This absolutely hasn't happened.
Because, just like the supposed advisory role the Tribunal plays, they will be treated as gospel, and anyone who opposes their recommendations will be screamed down and branded a racist.
Besides, the idea that all water, everywhere, was sacred and therefore theirs to control is ridiculous.
Also, stop downvoting everyone who disagrees with you, you petulant child.
Because, just like the supposed advisory role the Tribunal plays, they will be treated as gospel, and anyone who opposes their recommendations will be screamed down and branded a racist.
75% vote required to do anything my dude.
And what do you think they are going to do that you will oppose? You know co-governance already exists right? Waikato river is run by a co-governance situation (I'll confess I don't know the specifics) that was put in place under National. No problems, no-one trying to disagree with them and being labelled racist.
Besides, the idea that all water, everywhere, was sacred and therefore theirs to control is ridiculous.
First, they won't control it. They will share equal responsibilities to advise the board that controls it. Second, why not? They were here first, worked the land, lived in the areas, relied on the water, etc. Just because "we" came along and said "this is ours now" doesn't mean it wasn't especially important to them. Again, it's not our place to dictate their culture.
Also, stop downvoting everyone who disagrees with you, you petulant child.
Lol
