The Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, Prime Minister - Christopher.Luxon@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Nicola Willis - Nicola.Willis@parliament.govt.nz
The Rt Hon David Seymour - Deputy Prime Minister - David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Nicole McKee - Nicole.McKee@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Paul Goldsmith - paul.goldsmith@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Winston Peters - Winston.Peters@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Shane Jones - Shane.Jones@parliament.govt.nz
Dear Prime Minister and Ministers,
New Zealand is awaiting what has been described as one of the most constitutionally significant court decisions in recent history.
The High Court's pending judgment in Tau v Attorney-General concerns Ngāi Tahu's claim that its rangatiratanga over freshwater was never extinguished and should be recognised through a new regime for the regulation, governance and allocation of freshwater resources.
In the High Court, the Crown argued that Parliament has vested freshwater rights in the Crown, that Ngāi Tahu ceded its water rights, and that claims of continuing rangatiratanga over freshwater have no legal basis.
If that remains your Government's position, I ask that you reaffirm it publicly and unequivocally.
If Parliament has vested freshwater rights in the Crown, then the governance and allocation of New Zealand's freshwater resources should continue to be determined by Parliament—the institution elected by, and accountable to, every New Zealander.
Regardless of how the Court ultimately rules, the implications extend far beyond one iwi or even the South Island. At stake is a fundamental constitutional question: who should govern New Zealand's freshwater resources—the courts or Parliament?
Freshwater governance is not an abstract constitutional issue. Decisions about freshwater affect the daily lives of every New Zealander. They influence the water that flows from our taps, the viability of our farms, the generation of hydroelectric power, the operation of industry, the health of our rivers and lakes, and the planning decisions made by local authorities. Any proposal that would confer enduring governance rights over such a fundamental public resource raises questions that extend far beyond one region or one community. That is precisely why constitutional changes of this magnitude should be debated openly in Parliament and remain accountable to all New Zealanders through the democratic process.
Households, businesses, farmers, councils and communities all depend upon a clear, stable and democratically accountable framework for the management and allocation of freshwater resources.
For that reason alone, any enduring change to how freshwater is governed should occur only through Parliament following open public debate—not as the result of judicial interpretation.
Ngāi Tahu has stated that it is not seeking ownership of freshwater in the conventional sense. Rather, it seeks a governance framework recognising its continuing rangatiratanga over freshwater.
I respect the right of every New Zealander, including iwi, to pursue legal remedies through our independent courts. Equally, I respect the independence of the judiciary to determine the legal issues before it.
However, if the practical effect of the judgment is to establish permanent governance rights over a public resource based upon ancestry, then New Zealand will have crossed a constitutional threshold that Parliament has never expressly authorised and the public has never been asked to endorse.
Whether those rights are described as governance, co-governance, partnership, rangatiratanga or another term, the central constitutional issue remains the same.
Should enduring authority over nationally significant public resources rest with institutions accountable to the people of New Zealand, or should it arise through judicial recognition of historical rights?
That is not merely a legal question. It is a constitutional question deserving of democratic consideration.
This case also has implications well beyond the South Island. Separate litigation is also before the courts concerning Māori rights and interests in freshwater resources across New Zealand. Whatever the outcome of those proceedings, they illustrate that the constitutional questions raised in this case are part of a much broader national debate.
If that remains your Government's position, I ask that you reaffirm it publicly and unequivocally.
If Parliament has vested freshwater rights in the Crown, then the governance and allocation of New Zealand's freshwater resources should continue to be determined by Parliament—the institution elected by, and accountable to, every New Zealander.
Regardless of how the Court ultimately rules, the implications extend far beyond one iwi or even the South Island. At stake is a fundamental constitutional question: who should govern New Zealand's freshwater resources—the courts or Parliament?
Freshwater governance is not an abstract constitutional issue. Decisions about freshwater affect the daily lives of every New Zealander. They influence the water that flows from our taps, the viability of our farms, the generation of hydroelectric power, the operation of industry, the health of our rivers and lakes, and the planning decisions made by local authorities. Any proposal that would confer enduring governance rights over such a fundamental public resource raises questions that extend far beyond one region or one community. That is precisely why constitutional changes of this magnitude should be debated openly in Parliament and remain accountable to all New Zealanders through the democratic process.
Households, businesses, farmers, councils and communities all depend upon a clear, stable and democratically accountable framework for the management and allocation of freshwater resources.
For that reason alone, any enduring change to how freshwater is governed should occur only through Parliament following open public debate—not as the result of judicial interpretation.
Ngāi Tahu has stated that it is not seeking ownership of freshwater in the conventional sense. Rather, it seeks a governance framework recognising its continuing rangatiratanga over freshwater.
I respect the right of every New Zealander, including iwi, to pursue legal remedies through our independent courts. Equally, I respect the independence of the judiciary to determine the legal issues before it.
However, if the practical effect of the judgment is to establish permanent governance rights over a public resource based upon ancestry, then New Zealand will have crossed a constitutional threshold that Parliament has never expressly authorised and the public has never been asked to endorse.
Whether those rights are described as governance, co-governance, partnership, rangatiratanga or another term, the central constitutional issue remains the same.
Should enduring authority over nationally significant public resources rest with institutions accountable to the people of New Zealand, or should it arise through judicial recognition of historical rights?
That is not merely a legal question. It is a constitutional question deserving of democratic consideration.
This case also has implications well beyond the South Island. Separate litigation is also before the courts concerning Māori rights and interests in freshwater resources across New Zealand. Whatever the outcome of those proceedings, they illustrate that the constitutional questions raised in this case are part of a much broader national debate.
Together, these cases have the potential to reshape the future governance and allocation of freshwater resources throughout New Zealand.
Should the courts recognise enduring governance rights over freshwater, many New Zealanders will reasonably ask whether similar claims could arise in relation to other natural resources, environmental management, infrastructure, planning or other areas of public administration.
Whether or not such claims ultimately succeed is beside the point. The uncertainty alone demonstrates why constitutional questions of this magnitude should be resolved by Parliament rather than left to develop incrementally through litigation.
Parliament is uniquely equipped to consider constitutional change because it can hear from all affected New Zealanders through public submissions, select committee scrutiny and democratic debate. Courts, by contrast, determine only the legal issues presented by the parties before them. While both institutions have essential roles, questions of national constitutional policy are ultimately matters for the democratically elected legislature.
New Zealand's constitutional arrangements have long rested upon a simple democratic principle: Parliament makes the law, governments administer the law and courts interpret the law.
Where judicial decisions expose uncertainty or produce constitutional consequences that Parliament did not intend, Parliament has both the authority and the responsibility to clarify the law.
That is not an attack upon judicial independence. It is the proper functioning of our constitutional system.
Prime Minister, I therefore ask that you publicly commit to the following principles.
First, that the governance and allocation of New Zealand's freshwater resources will remain the responsibility of Parliament and governments accountable equally to every New Zealander.
Second, that any constitutional change affecting the governance of nationally significant public resources should occur only through legislation debated openly in Parliament.
Third, that your Government will carefully consider the constitutional implications of the Court's decision and, if necessary, introduce legislation to reaffirm Parliament's intention regarding freshwater governance.
Whatever one's views on the Treaty of Waitangi or the important cultural relationship many iwi have with freshwater, I believe most New Zealanders would agree that constitutional change of this magnitude should occur only with democratic consent.
The people of New Zealand elect Parliament to make laws on matters affecting the nation as a whole. Decisions that have the potential to alter the constitutional balance of New Zealand should be made through Parliament, following open democratic debate, rather than emerging incrementally through litigation.
Prime Minister, history will judge how governments respond when fundamental constitutional questions arise. I respectfully ask your Government to reaffirm that constitutional change affecting every New Zealander should occur only through Parliament, following open democratic debate and with the consent of the people it serves.
Respectfully,
Geoff Parker - A concerned New Zealander
Should the courts recognise enduring governance rights over freshwater, many New Zealanders will reasonably ask whether similar claims could arise in relation to other natural resources, environmental management, infrastructure, planning or other areas of public administration.
Whether or not such claims ultimately succeed is beside the point. The uncertainty alone demonstrates why constitutional questions of this magnitude should be resolved by Parliament rather than left to develop incrementally through litigation.
Parliament is uniquely equipped to consider constitutional change because it can hear from all affected New Zealanders through public submissions, select committee scrutiny and democratic debate. Courts, by contrast, determine only the legal issues presented by the parties before them. While both institutions have essential roles, questions of national constitutional policy are ultimately matters for the democratically elected legislature.
New Zealand's constitutional arrangements have long rested upon a simple democratic principle: Parliament makes the law, governments administer the law and courts interpret the law.
Where judicial decisions expose uncertainty or produce constitutional consequences that Parliament did not intend, Parliament has both the authority and the responsibility to clarify the law.
That is not an attack upon judicial independence. It is the proper functioning of our constitutional system.
Prime Minister, I therefore ask that you publicly commit to the following principles.
First, that the governance and allocation of New Zealand's freshwater resources will remain the responsibility of Parliament and governments accountable equally to every New Zealander.
Second, that any constitutional change affecting the governance of nationally significant public resources should occur only through legislation debated openly in Parliament.
Third, that your Government will carefully consider the constitutional implications of the Court's decision and, if necessary, introduce legislation to reaffirm Parliament's intention regarding freshwater governance.
Whatever one's views on the Treaty of Waitangi or the important cultural relationship many iwi have with freshwater, I believe most New Zealanders would agree that constitutional change of this magnitude should occur only with democratic consent.
The people of New Zealand elect Parliament to make laws on matters affecting the nation as a whole. Decisions that have the potential to alter the constitutional balance of New Zealand should be made through Parliament, following open democratic debate, rather than emerging incrementally through litigation.
Prime Minister, history will judge how governments respond when fundamental constitutional questions arise. I respectfully ask your Government to reaffirm that constitutional change affecting every New Zealander should occur only through Parliament, following open democratic debate and with the consent of the people it serves.
Respectfully,
Geoff Parker - A concerned New Zealander
Postscript (7 August 2026):
Since writing this Open Letter, Attorney-General Chris Bishop has publicly reaffirmed the constitutional principle that major policy decisions belong to Parliament and that Parliament remains New Zealand's supreme law-maker. That principle is entirely consistent with the central argument of this letter—that constitutional changes of national significance should ultimately be determined by Parliament rather than emerging through litigation.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.