The Government never mentions this — not a word of it appeared in its recent announcement of minor changes to the unpopular reforms — and not a word appeared in the news coverage I received.
Yet the phrase “Te Mana o te Wai” permeates the legislation. It is not defined but it is said to have something to do with a “mauri” or life force in water. That might just mean water quality, or it might extend to the uses of water.
Last Wednesday’s Herald reported that an iwi in Bay of Plenty has been given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a consent issued by the regional council for a bottling company to draw more water from an aquifer in Whakatane.
Depletion did not appear to be an issue. The report said, “Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa claims the bottling activity would significantly damage the mauri, or life force, of the water.” It did not explain how water in an unadulterated form could possibly do this.
It left me wondering, what beverages, and even less edifying industrial uses of water, might fall afoul of its mauri. I quite like spiritual concepts — up to the point that they restrict the prosperity of New Zealand.
So far the rūnanga has failed to convince the Environment Court, the High Court and Court of Appeal that putting water into recyclable plastic bottles damages anything but under “Affordable Water Reform” it might not need to contest resource consents, it could simply state the case to its water entity.
Chris Hipkins is doing his utmost to keep the public poorly informed, never acknowledging the directive power of these statements, denying “co-governance” is what equal representation on an overseeing body does, claiming at the same time that it is no different from the co-governance of places iconic for iwi.
But it is one thing to set up co-guardianship of places that primarily require conservation, quite another thing to extend it to public utilities. Not many people may care if Tūhoe co-governors want to restrict access to the Ureweras, a great many will care if their water supply depends on governors whose interests may not align with theirs and cannot be voted out.
This may be a turning point in our history. It is 35 years since New Zealand’s highest-ranking judge decided the Treaty envisaged a “partnership” between the Crown and Māori. He was assisted by an affidavit from Orange at the time.
She has written another book, The Story of a Treaty, He Kōrero Tiriti, and she said in the interview the public might not like its conclusion, that chiefs signed the Treaty in 1840 on a promise of “shared authority”. Did they?
I have just finished reading a hefty new tome, The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi, by historian Ned Fletcher. He records volumes of correspondence between those who conceived, drafted and presented the Treaty to the chiefs and none of it mentions “shared authority”.
They promised the chiefs autonomy over their tribes and territories within the laws and government of the new state. It was a prescription for self-governance rather than co-governance, Māori services for Māori needs, and majority rule for indivisible services like water.
Even elite revolutions in a democracy eventually come to a popular vote.
