At this week’s Infrastructure New Zealand conference, Parker was open about the pressure he had come under “to go 50:50 with Māoridom” on the makeup of the new regional planning committees that will be set up once the resource management legislation is replaced by two bills which have been in front of Parliament this week.
The Waitangi Tribunal had earlier suggested co-governance was in order.
But in a speech on September 6, Parker said the committees would include regional representatives from all local authorities and representatives of Māori groups.
“The Government is not proposing co-governance. Regional planning committees will have a legal minimum of two Māori representatives. Local councils and Māori in a region can then agree on whether they want more.”
On Tuesday, Parker took matters further by first referencing the many instances of co-governance for the management of natural resources already in place as a result of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The most well-known of these is the Waikato River Authority, a 50:50 co-governance entity which was established by the last National-led Government.
“We’re promising to carry all of those forward but once you get to high levels of the overall system you come up with this tension between democracy and Treaty.”
But moving forward required a different approach in his view.
His public rationale to the infrastructure sector went like this.
“The Treaty has three articles. Article 1 covers the right of governments to govern and some of those functions are delegated under resource legislation to local government, but they are still Article 1 rights. It very clearly affects Māori interests in respect of Article 2 interests relating to their control of not just their lands but fisheries. Their interests in water etc.
“And then Article 3. We’re all supposed to move together as one country. We decided with all of these things in balance that we would pursue a system where we had co-operation brought about by participation rather than a 50:50 co-governance model.”
Parker is known as probably the deepest thinker within the Labour Cabinet.
Nevertheless, it is no easy matter for a minister to speak openly on these issues given the power that Labour’s 15-strong Māori caucus currently exerts within the Government.
And the fact that opposition political parties like National, Act and NZ First, which has re-emerged as a potential political force, have clear concerns about the expansion of co-governance and are all opposed to the Three Waters legislation where Māori have a co-governance role on the regulatory side.
That pressure is compounded as arguably, Labour is already running a system of “co-governance” within its own Government with the 15-strong Māori caucus having chalked up considerable policy victories.
Led by deputy Labour leader Kelvin Davis, it comprises 15 members — what Justice Minister Kiritapu Allan refers to as the “first 15.” Labour’s Māori caucus also holds six of the seven Māori electorate seats and boasts six ministers.
It’s known that Parker had to face down that vigorous Māori caucus — which had lined up with powerful iwi interests — to ensure co-governance was not inserted into the Resource Management Act replacement legislation.
That said, he did tell the InfrastructureNZ conference there would be a codified list of iwi and hapū which developers could consult with locally on plans.
The Government has made some concessions.
Under the Natural and Built Environments Bill, a “National Māori Entity” will be established to monitor whether government bodies use their powers in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The problem for Māori is while the National Māori Entity has the power to consult, investigate and submit on matters of the environment and Te Tiriti, it cannot force anyone to do anything.
As Māori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer observes, Māori will be a minority on the crucially important regional planning committees, rather than being able to exercise the rangatiratanga and kaitiaki leadership that it sees as its right.
In a column for the Herald, she asked why did the Crown refuse to release all sections of the legislation to its Treaty partners prior to introduction to the House?
“Not only did they make us sign confidentiality agreements before we could see parts of it, they also then gagged us from sharing that information with our own people. Is this not the age of partnership?”
Ngarewa-Packer contends that sidelining Treaty partners has meant iwi settlements cannot be renegotiated to reflect the new landscape.
“Once again ‘mainstream’ interests are being catered for first, and those protected by Article II of Te Tiriti come second. Even the Tiriti clause falls short of requiring the Crown to honour Te Tiriti, despite there being precedent for that language in the Education and Training Act.”
Many thinking New Zealanders would like more debate on these issues.
Surely it is at the point where there should be a Royal Commission to examine our constitutional arrangements?
