The Hon. Chris Penk
Dear Chris,
In the West Auckland area of Taupaki-Kumeu, horticulturists including myself, have to comply with water-bore renewal fees which will cost property owning horticulturists $7000 along with a now separate hydrologist's report of $5000 or more, in addition there may also be a water meter verification fee requirement of over $800, the last two having GST added. Our bore consents, which last for 15 years, are due at the end of May this year. In 2012 the consenting renewal cost was only $2500 including gst.
These extra costs are due to the previous government's introduction of regulations under “Te Mana o te Wai”. This regulatory process basically allows councils to rubber-stamp the renewal process by which water bore owners continue to use water for irrigation and related matters on their properties.
Horticulturists are in fact the guardians of their own local environments as they expertly have to maintain their own bores and regulate water usage that is cost effective, while also producing much needed fruit and vegetables for the local and national economy.
Auckland Council's role is chiefly to manage the number of bores and the availability of water to be extracted, based on hydrologist reports.
Recently, to comply with the above regulations Auckland Council has invited tribal organisations to have their say by submitting expressions of interest in the consenting process. Consequently, Te Kawerau a Maki, based in Henderson, claims that it has a “special relationship with the environment,” ie as the guardian of resources such as water terming their interest in the bore renewal as being one of cultural sensitivity, consequently giving it a right to engage in the consent process! That any organisation outside of Auckland Council may block a bore consent by claiming that they have a need to do a “Cultural Values Assessment” is an anathema to common sense.
Unfortunately, in 2017 the National Government made changes to the RMA that made it compulsory for all consent holders to consult with local tribal organisations. This meant that the consent could be declined unless consent holders acquiesced to tribal demands. Initially Te Kawerau a Maki demanded a desk top assessment resulting in a cultural advice report, coming with a cost of $1000 plus gst. Further additional fees may include a $1500 payment for a site visit if deemed necessary by iwi. Other aspects may be a request for further information and certain conditions may be placed on the consent all potentially adding costs to the consent holder.
Close neighbours going through the same process that I have recently done simply stated they saw no need in having a desk top assessment by local Iwi.
Auckland Council's response for declining a desk top assessment by local iwi was to simply to blackmail them by stating that if not done then the consent would proceed to a public notified application process coming at a cost of about $20,000, if implemented, according to Williamson Water their hydrologist!
English Common law, which was adopted in New Zealand under the English Laws Act of 1855, states that no one owns water. Accordingly tribal groups cannot and should not infringe on property rights of water bore owners to use water on their land for irrigation purposes. In the 1840's local Ngati Whatua chief Paora Tuhaere in claiming he had residual rights in land sold took his case to the magistrates court in Auckland. He would be duly told that once selling his land he no longer had interests in it. Therefore, no Iwi should be allowed to interfere in the rights of private landowners nearly 200 years later. Previously each 15-year consent process did not require local iwi to sign off, not in 2012, nor 1995 and certainly none when the water bore consent was first granted in 1988. No consent should be signed off by any iwi.
The act of consulting should never mean that this simply becomes a statutory requirement. This absurdity makes for another level of bureaucracy by which unelected and unaccountable iwi organisations, infringe on the rights of private landowners and as such it has no place in New Zealand's liberal democracy.
The Coalition Government has been very slow in ensuring that regulations such as “Te Mana o te Wai” and the RMA changes made by the National Government in 2017 which effectively gave Iwi institutions an over-sight of private property, are curtailed and stopped. Recent government legislation “The Fast Track Approvals Act” still allows for consultation with iwi and hapu. This means that the Coalition Government still supports a duality in local government. One based on ethnicity, iwi and hapu, which undermines the Human Rights act. Thus, a racially reinvented spiritual theology determines economic outcomes for all New Zealanders.
The question needs to be raised if the reverse situation arises. If it were an Iwi based project being considered under the Fast Tracks Approvals Act, apart from a democratically elected local body having been consulted, does the Iwi/ hapu then have to face scrutiny from any other ethnically based organisation or else having any public consultation process take place at all for the project? If not, then the process for consents under this act and the existing RMA is racist and harks back to a feudal age of governance.
This duality of local governance was also established in Auckland with the establishment of the Maori Statutory Board, under the so-called Auckland Super City Act 2010, which was given more rights than local citizens. Local community boards were given little or no power. While council-controlled organisations, such as Auckland Transport regularly consults and gives consent to Ngati Whatua's wishes on issues such as the recent naming rights for new railway stations. Auckland Transport carried out it's perfunctory consultation process with ratepayers, but the results were both never published and simply ignored while tribal requests were adhered to.
Unsurprisingly we have had lower voter turnout for Auckland's local body elections over the past 15 years. The public clearly understand that democracy is no longer working for them in Auckland when democratic accountability has been lost while as ratepayers, they still have to pick up the costs of decision making.
Many commercial growers who draw water from the Kumeu-Hobsonville Aquifer, have their water bore consents due by the end of this month. In the immediate district there are still a large number of crops grown: kiwifruit, persimmons, apples and plums, strawberries, tomatoes, plus vineyards, and vegetables. Some growers will now not bother to do so because of the costs involved. Auckland
Council's process ignores the fact many growers have held consents for 15, 30 years or longer. Growers are also ratepayers, and these have become quite excessive in recent years. A vegetable grower recently stated that if costs keep on rising many will give up and we will start importing more vegetables from Australia and elsewhere. Consents should be minimised and be fit for purpose. Iwi involvement is dubious and unwarranted and should be stopped.
Growers, like myself, need to spend their time and money on managing their own property environments and not on cumbersome bureaucratic processes as regulated by previous governments, that are counterproductive, obstructive to New Zealand's food security and that fly directly in the face of democracy, plain logic and Common Law rights.
Finally, I have three questions to ask of you and this Coalition Government:
1. Why has the so-called Fast Track Approvals Act continued the duality of local government by allowing for compulsory consultation with iwi organisations on projects, both small and large, public and private, thus effectively giving iwi the power of veto, before they can proceed? And will this duality also continue to apply to the new RMA when it is enacted?
2. When will the statutory requirement to consult with tribal organisations for the consenting process for local government organisations be stopped as they impose a financial burden on private property owners?
3. When will this government introduce legislation to dismantle the dysfunctional Auckland Super-City and return democracy to its citizens via local community boards having enhanced powers and functions restored while at the same time ensuring that the CCO's and Maori Statutory Board have their powers and functions curtailed?
Yours Sincerely
Wayne Ryburn
Wayne Ryburn, an Auckland University graduate, with a thesis on the history of the Kaipara, has been a social science teacher for nearly 50 years.
7 comments:
This just sums up all the problems with New Zealand. When is this government going to abide by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi: that is they are the rule makers; citizens have property rights; and all NZers are equal before the law. Maori consultation is a rort.
Good luck with your next approval.Some tax free koha in accord with tikanga/te ao wil likely assist.
Wayne’s article cuts to the very core of what National is not doing. Why aren’t they addressing the very real issues that breach our property rights, threaten our democracy and weigh like an anchor on our productivity? Te mana o te wai should have been out on its ear right off the bat. It’s a first class carriage on the big long maori gravy train - a grifter’s delight. This is not what we voted for. National and Luxon are primarily responsible but NZ First and Act need to do more. The progress in de-maorification has been glacial. In some cases maorification is actually being further embedded by the likes of Stanford, Potaka and Goldsmith. Nothing is going to change in time for Wayne’s water consent with its overpriced fees and ridiculous mandatory cultural assessment. The cost goes up substantially, but there’s no corresponding increase in productivity. The new RMA will need to be better than good. This coalition government has got one helluva lot of inaction to make up for before the next election.
The absurdity is that these make payment activities add to GDP
One of the problems this government is facing is they want growth, the answer being for endless overseas trips to get new markets, but if they don’t face up to the problems in their face, what they were voted in for, to reverse all this racially divisive, over bearing bureaucracy crap, everyday issues the producers and workers face, their efforts are a waste
Dead right Anon 1:45pm. Ignoring the serious problems at home turns Luxon’s big display of going for growth into a farce. He's limiting his chances of success right from the get go. Who wants to invest or do business in a country where grifting is accepted as the norm and even encouraged by government at both local and national levels?
Absolute madness.
National invite the rich in saying NZ is open for business , crow about growing the economy , meanwhile killing off our own producers.
No idea what they are doing.
Post a Comment