Water, and not bread is the staff of life; an expression the goes back to biblical days. We can exist for quite some time without bread (food) but not water.
Water is essential for proper brain function which has become even more obvious these days. One can be forgiven for assuming dehydration is prevalent with (published) ill-informed comments from public figures denying there is any public concerns as to where the future administration/commercialisation of water is heading.
It is entirely right and proper therefore that all the issues surrounding ownership, development and or control of water and its uses receives the utmost scrutiny. Claims to fresh water in the South Island have been filed in the High Court so it would seem the political scramble for use and prior use rights continues unabated.
The 100-year-old Miners Rights are to be unilaterally extinguished
toward the end of this year. Many would also suggest that the current municipal
administration of water should also abolished. It is most concerning that Local
and Central Government, Mayors and Ministers still see themselves as the
appropriate authorities to continue to drive the reforms in the administration
of water despite (collectively) being asleep at the wheel for so long.
Concerningly, Regional Councils each write their water policy,
implement the policy, administer the policy, prosecute the policy, and sit in
judgment on the policy which they are unlikely to ever rule against. There is a
huge issue of fairness and independence with this local Government process
alone. The consultative process of local
government is usually along the lines of – “Tell us whether you agree with what
we have decided” and therein lies the problem. Genuine consultation has to
occur at the formative stages which simply doesn’t happen or is rare to say the
least. To be fair, the constant flow of
new requirements around fresh water - called National Policy Statements from
Central Government cause real difficulties for Local Government. Such
Government policies adopt a drift net approach for convenience and ensnare the
good, the bad and everything in between - to be implemented by Local
Government.
Meanwhile water shortages are reported, almost weekly among
local Government - the latest being Tauranga. The growth of Auckland has the
potential to reduce the Waikato river to a shadow of its former self as consumptive
demand outstrips supply. Curiously, water extraction from the Waikato appears
to be an entirely acceptable - non notifiable process. Try taking water from a
rural stream and all hell breaks loose. The urban-rural divide is quite obvious
as rural users seek to continue to extract water for a personal/commercial use
just as the good folk in Auckland do. So how does that work when a racial
element is also introduced
Much of the current controversy is due to Maoridom insisting
their significant voice must be heard as the proposed “Three waters” reforms
proceed at pace. Nobody within Central or Local Government has explained how
the all-important declaration of any conflict-of-interest requirement for all
who sit on a council, is to be complied with if participants on a council are
there to secure their own rights and interests in fresh water as of right. It
is not clear whether the existing situation, where conflicts of interest and
indeed vested interests are obvious, is being managed or ignored by council
where representation of Maori is already existing at the council table with
full voting rights. Non-Maori water users with conflicts or vested interest are
immediately disqualified. Whether or not such conflicts, as applied to Maori, should
be a matter of concern to the wider public is a question that demands
transparency right from the start. The Westminster system of a democratic
governance demands nothing less; or is administration of water going to be “adjusted”
to allow vested Maori interests to also determine policy.
Ngai Tahu are one of the South Islands most astute investors,
but with a top tax rate of 19% it is hard to see Ngai Tahu being anything else
but successful. It’s also hard to see them wanting to get involved in aging
urban water piping infrastructure. Rather, their interest is likely to be
designed around water takes where a levy could be easily implemented as all
water takes are now monitored. If that is to happen now or into the future,
then it must be declared. Ngai Tahu play the long game and are extremely good
at it so perhaps the Leader of the Oppositions recent comments around Maori
objectives with this issue could or do ‘hold water.’
It is therefore reasonable to ask whether Maori interests in
water should be seen as a threat or an opportunity to all water users. It is
possible that Maoridom could end up as being perfectly reasonable stewards of
fresh water. Maori leaders who say they
wish to stop privatisation of fresh water need to explain how their 50% control
differs from privatisation.
The government must first adhere to a simple principle – trust the people - ask the people. They won’t of course as Jacinda has learnt that you can change the name of our country without discussion and no media outlet has challenged her on that issue so I guess water ownership will be walk in the park. It’s easy to accept that the National Party is taking the knee on this issue.
Gerry Eckhoff is a former councillor on the Otago Regional Council and MP.
1 comment:
Ngai Tahu might like to take ownership of the water currently causing problems and its aftermath down south. Not likely.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.