Water! Cool
clear water. Adam’s ale, the first and most delicious drink of our ancestors;
the water of rebirth, the cleanser, the gift of life itself. And in our own
over-populated, drying, increasingly desperate days, ‘the new oil’.
Some of us
may remember the film Chinatown,
directed by Roman Polanski ~ that takes you back a bit ~ with a plot hingeing
around the huge amounts of money to be made by manipulating the Los Angeles water supply.
The story was not implausible.
We have all seen the photographs of privatised
water from northern California ,
sold to southern cities, flowing hundreds of miles past parched cracked
farmland to fill urban swimming pools and to water urban lawns. But the pools
and lawns are disappearing, for California ,
as we are now learning, is in the fourth or fifth year of an unprecedented
drought. Sao Paulo , in South
America ~ population somewhere around twenty million ~ is perhaps
even more desperate; the second or third year of drought, and water rationing
is imposed in some places in the city for five days every week.
We
have had a drought ourselves, of course, in many parts of the eastern North and
South Islands . Even after this first and very
early snowfall much of the South Island ’s east
coast is still worryingly dry; and if the snow presages a long and hard winter,
as is not impossible, then it will not be much help. The Opuha Dam, in South Canterbury , was effectively empty a month or more
ago, and its supply of water for irrigation had simply ceased.
Water is precious here too, then, not just
in other countries. We are only waking up to this, because until recently we
have always had more than enough to meet our simple needs, and so we have
always taken it for granted. And what is precious is also ~ to use a more
prosaic, practical kind of word ~ valuable.
It is better than gold. Water is not
just a pretty but useless metal; it is the basis of life itself. Whoever controls water controls us; in a time
of shortages he will have his hand at our throat.
So it is hardly to be wondered at, then, that
Maori want to get a slice of the action, and that a ‘research group’ called
Sapere ~ to know, or to understand, in the Latin tongue; a good name, even if
there will inevitably be a tension between the demands of pure scientific
investigation and the desires of their particular clients ~ Sapere, anyway, was
commissioned by the Iwi Leaders Group to do some research. And what they have
come up with, you will not be surprised to hear, are some recommendations,
based no doubt on the most disinterested and undisputed scientific principles,
recommending a nationwide ‘settlement’ of Maori water claims ~ a settlement that some have already called a
‘Waterlords’ deal. That name, of course, comes as a conscious echo of the
Sealords deal about fisheries; but the name is also, it seems to me, deeply
prophetic. The masters of water have a very good chance of being our new lords.
But before we go any further, a brief word of
explanation about the administration of water in New Zealand . At common law there
was no ownership of water; a landowner had the right to use the water that
flowed over his land, but he was obliged to pass it on to landowners further
downstream undiminished in quality or quantity. In 1967 Parliament made the
Water and Soil Conservation Act, which, without going into questions of
ownership, declared that except in certain pretty limited situations no-one
could use any ‘natural water’ ~ which is all water, frozen, liquid or steam,
not in a pipe, tank or cistern ~ without a permission ~ a ‘water right’ as it
was called ~ granted by a regional water board. The Act gave absolutely no
guidance as to what was to guide the board in the making of its decisions. That
is pretty amazing when you think about it. Nowadays we have purposes and
principles listed at length in statutes, and policies and plans galore. Less
than fifty years ago our unsophisticated ancestors saw no need. There was
obviously a general consensus about how to approach these things; that, and
some understanding that there was so much water around that hard decisions
would seldom be necessary. A simpler age indeed!
The Resource Management Act largely continued
these arrangements. ‘Water rights’ were rechristened ‘water permits’, and are
now granted and regulated by regional councils. As before, anyone can apply for
one, and the order of priority is simply ‘first come first served’; a regional
council does not weigh up the competing benefits and costs of different
projects using the same water, but simply grants water ~ assuming water is
available ~ to whomever asks first. Water permits last for a maximum of
thirty-five years. There is no right of renewal, but holders of existing
permits do have a certain priority when seeking a brand new permit for the same
thing.
(You will recall that the Waitangi Tribunal
now has no jurisdiction to investigate any ‘historical’ claim, arising out of
events occurring before 1992. New
Zealand ’s current legal water arrangements
were set up well before then, and so the Waitangi Tribunal’s very dubious ‘findings’
on water were simply beyond the Tribunal’s powers to make. But what does law
matter?)
I have to mention all this, because the
question of Maori ownership of water cannot be separated from the bigger
question of water administration generally. Water is a common good, heaven’s
gift to us all. By the law of nature and, hitherto, by our own human laws, it
has been, essentially, common property. Yet it must be allocated to individuals
for their and the community’s use and benefit. How is this to be done? At
present the law strikes the compromise of granting individuals a permission to
use a portion of this common property for a certain period of time. The ‘water
permit’, although no longer called a ‘water right’, is nevertheless a right to
use water. It is a valuable piece of property. Possession of one might double
the value of your farm.
The present system, though, is not without
disadvantages. Although there may be administrative charges, no-one is charged
for the actual water he or she uses. Although we might well object to charges
for modest household use, it does not seem unreasonable that major users making
major profits should pay. The absence of payment for water encourages over-use
and waste. Then again, the ‘first come first served’ principle means that water
is not necessarily allocated to its most efficient end-use. The first one in
the queue seeking a water permit from the regional council might be a farmer
using large quantities of water to produce so many dollars worth of milk. That
same amount of water, or even less, might be able to produce many more dollars
worth of something else ~ wine, say, or seed crops. But the water is not
available for these other uses because the dairy farmer was first in the queue.
So the suggestion has been made that water
rights should be ‘tradable’ ~ that one should be able to buy and sell them.
That way, the dairy farmer has an incentive to use ‘his’ water thriftily and
sell the excess to the vineyard owner, or even to sell all his water to the
vineyard. The expected eventual result is that over time the water would end up
in the hands of those who use it with the greatest economic efficiency.
In fact, such trading is actually possible under
the Resource Management Act right now, with the consent of the regional council
or under its plan. You may have seen a recent Campbell Live programme about a
foreign-owned bottling plant on the Heretaunga Plains sending to China huge
amounts of water that could be used for orchard irrigation. The bottlers
purchased their water permit from a previous owner. And the bottlers do not pay
for the water itself.
But that tradable approach also has its
problems. For one thing, many water bodies in New Zealand are not just fully
allocated but actually over-allocated. Incompetent administrators have over the
years granted water permits for more water than the river, aquifer or whatever
actually holds. They were able to do this because many of the permit holders
did not use all the water they had asked for ~ so the river still appeared to
have plenty of water in it which could be allocated to someone else. As long as
all the permit holders do not use all their allocation, that might not present
a problem. But once permit holders begin to sell off the unused portions of
their allocations to other people who are paying good money for something they do intend to use, it will suddenly be discovered
that there is not enough water to go round.
Even when there is not over-allocation,
though, most of our water resources are pretty well fully-allocated; all the water in the river is allocated to
farming, hydro-electricity, the biological life of the river itself, and so on.
And so the question immediately arises ~ if Maori were to be given any
allocation of water, where would it come from? Would there be a confiscation or
compulsory purchase of existing water permits? (Unlikely, surely.) Or would water charges be imposed, with a
proportion of the charges being siphoned off to Maori? (Ah! Rather likelier ~ the
effect of many Treaty settlements, after all, is to establish a new parasitic rentier/landlord class, clipping the
ticket on other people’s labours.) Or would there be some sort of preference
given to Maori when water permits were renewed and new ones granted? (Which
water permits could then be on-sold, with ticket-clipping again occurring. Or
perhaps not; perhaps all our water might end up in the hands of a surly racial
minority.)
For another thing, once we have tradable
water rights then, as the Campbell Live programme illustrates, we open
ourselves to the California
situation. ‘The most economically efficient end-use of water’ sounds innocent
enough; but what if that means bypassing parched fields to serve unsustainable
cities? What if a private water permit owner were to decide that it was most
profitable to sell pure New
Zealand water overseas, rather than let
anyone in our own country have any of it? That would be appalling; yet it is what
is happening with the Campbell Live bottling plant, and it is merely the logic
of the marketplace and tradable property rights.
Indeed, tradable water rights really only
work effectively if water is fully privatised. If you are going to buy the right to use
water, you do not want that right to disappear in a few years time when the
water permit expires. It could surely be argued that given the short time
horizons of most business decisions, a thirty-five year term and priority in
obtaining a new water permit would have been security enough. But the more security
the better, from a private point of view; especially if your use or abuse of
that formerly public resource is going to be unpopular or controversial in
future….
The new model proposed by the Iwi Leaders
Group and the Sapere report will not solve the Campbell Live problem. In fact,
it will formalise that misuse of water as part of our law forever. The report proposes not only a ‘nationwide settlement’ of
the highly dubious Maori water claim but also a change from 35 year consents to
permanent ones, and a market in tradable water rights. So rights to water would
last forever, and be private property like anything else; and so a treasured
public resource fundamental to life itself moves towards control by a handful
of ~ who knows who they will be? But their administration of water will not
have the public good as its primary aim.
The report, then, proposes not just the gift
to Maori of some part of existing water arrangements, but also a fundamentally
new arrangement for all water.
There are two things to object to, then. It
would be bad enough to give away yet another part of our family silver to one
racially defined segment of the population; especially when we know perfectly
well that ordinary Maori are not going to benefit from yet another gift to what
Chris Trotter has just described as ‘elite-brokered, ostensibly iwi-based
‘neo-tribal capitalist’ corporations…functionally indistinguishable from the
foreign and pakeha-owned corporations in whose interests New Zealand politics
is now transacted’. Any water ‘settlement’ will be just another gift to the new
fat cats.
(Chris Trotter adds that ‘[t]hese neo-tribal
capitalists have grown exceptionally skilled at masking the commercial
imperatives that are their true raison d’etre behind the rhetoric of reparation
and redress. How else could God’s rain have become the Iwi Leadership Group’s
private property?’)
No principle of justice, no events of the
past, real or spurious, oblige us to privatise public assets and replace white
capitalists with brown ones.
But ~ the second thing ~ what the Iwi
Leadership Group is demanding is not just an unwarranted share in the existing
pie, but the creation of a completely new fully privatised pie, with very
far-reaching consequences. Somehow the great cosmic understanding embedded in
those fundamental concepts of aroha and kaitiakitanga and love for everyone and all creation, all of us here on Papatuanuku, which
have, for whatever reason, recently become more prominent in our understanding
of Maori culture ~ somehow this is
slowly transforming itself into the idea that it would be best, then ~ most
‘appropriate’ ~ for the particular
traditional kaitiaki to look after everything on everyone’s behalf, because
they know how to do it, and they will of course extract appropriate
administrative expenses, and the white folk will just sit nervously by hoping
that there will be a bit left in the pot by the time they come to be served. There
will have to be more than just Maori private owners of course, to start off with
anyway, but there will be plenty of other willing investors from big powerful
countries. New Zealand
water will be a gift to the world, a prize to be coveted and bought and sold
far away from our native hills…but too bad for those of us who just live here.
What does the government think? It is
equivocating. Dr Smith, Minister for the Environment, ‘does not accept that
Maori have any preferential first right over either nutrient or water
allocation. So no notional allocation and no automatic right to 10 or 20 per
cent for iwi.’ That is promising. But Mr English says that the Crown accepts
‘the general principle that iwi have rights and interests’, and Dr Smith says
that the government’s view is that Maori rights and interests in water could be
addressed ‘by an effective voice in the process, catchment by catchment’. What
might that mean exactly? Handing things over to regional councils, never the
sharpest knives in the drawer, for a bit of private bullying and blackmail? I
fear the worst.
We are just at the beginning of a very long
argument here, and clear conclusions are impossible. I leave you, though, with
two thoughts. First, if we are unhappy about privatisation of water to Maori,
then we should be unhappy about the privatisation of water generally. We must not be racist. If privatisation to
private profit-making institutions and organisations is acceptable, then Maori
are just as entitled to own water as any other private person. We may object to
them getting the water without having to pay for it like everyone else, but
that is as far as our objections can go.
And second, if we are really concerned about
this wonderful gift of water, we should all be taking greater care of it than
we do now. We might be able to quibble about one or two of the details, but
many of New Zealand ’s
water bodies are a disgrace ~ filthy, undrinkable, unswimmable, unfit for
living things, often hardly existing at all after much water extraction. To
judge by the state of many of our waterways, we could not be thought to care
much about water at all. If we are going to care, let us do it properly.
8 comments:
Many years ago I had dealings with a wealthy American, who lived in Queenstown, and who part owned a high county pastoral lease property. I asked him how he made his money, his explanation was "every time someone in LA turns on a tap, I get paid" He said that he owned some of the water source for LA. Is that what we want here? Everyone pays some wealthy individual/group whenever they use water?
The fundamental concept of willingly gifting ones jewels to another in exchange for no benefit of any sort (not even feeling good) is incomprehensible. The Chinese taxi driver on the TV ads portrays the attitude of the recipient beautifully. The bottling plant should be returned to its owner and Iwi Enterprises Inc should be told "No, you may not own the water."
Just a few years ago no one would've believed you if you'd told them part Maoris would claim ownership of our water, and that our govt would do anything but tell them to go jump in the lake. And yet here we are facing the very real possibility of paying these bludgers royalties for the water that falls from the sky.
What next? The air we breath? Now how ludicrous is that? At the mere hint our govt will certainly tell them to go jump in the lake!
What right do the Maori have to make historical "claims" to anything? Their ancestors came here from some place which even the Maori do not know, and they committed genocide on the peaceful Moriori people who were here before them. What rights did the Maori ancestors accord to the Moriori?
But setting aside the "sins of the fathers", today's Maori should have equal rights no greater and no less than any other human being. Giving Maori ownership of water is no less foolish than giving it to anyone else. If the Maori want a say in what happens to the country's water, then let them earn a place in the system which is supposed to govern ALL of the people in the country.
Water is an essential part of life. Without water, a human being will die. No human being, regardless of race or colour, should be given the "right" to use the power of life for their own personal gain.
The only sensible answer to the question lies in a fair and profitless system of water allocation and distribution.
Taking about Maori as part of our population is not accurate as they are a closed society which (as they see it) overlays our own. We are a circle in their circle; our rights flow from them.
How many remember back in the 1960s and earlier? 'Maori Land' was characterized by 2 things. In so many cases if left to the Maori 'owners', it was reverting to wasteland. Overgrown with scrub (not native plants)
Alternately it was leased to Pakeha farmers who strived to make a profit from the land. They were hampered in their efforts. They did not own it. The Maori landlords did not make an effort to improve the land or even provide incentives for the leasee to improve it.
Another point - will Maori Water Rights require that when there is no water (in times of drought) that the Maori refund the money they charge.
How will they assess charges on native birds and animals who drink THEIR water?
This is bureaucracy gone mad!!!
More attempts by the Government to divide the nation!!
Your racism is showing. Calling Maori a 'surly racial minority' if offensive, ignorant ('race' is a cultural invention) and irrelevant to how Maori sovereign rights should be acknowledged.
Douglas said...
"What right do the Maori have to make historical "claims" to anything?...they committed genocide on the peaceful Moriori people who were here before them. What rights did the Maori ancestors accord to the Moriori?"
Douglas it was not Maori, considered as a single group, who carried out the murder or enslavement of the Moriori people. Only Māori from the Taranaki region of the Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Iwi's were involved. See: Moriori : a people rediscovered. 1989. by Michael King. or Moriori : a people rediscovered Rev. ed. 2000. by Michael King.
Post a Comment