Hipkins’ line on Three Waters has been that the Government had not explained it very well and that if people knew more about it they would be less concerned. I doubt that he believes this and I wish television reporters who take this line would read the reform prospectus and the legislation.
I am fairly sure that if most people read these documents they would be more worried, not less.
Two months ago, when Hipkins was preparing the ground for a retreat, Maori speakers at Ratana and Waitangi were saying we had “nothing to fear from co-governance”. Having read what is proposed I think we have reason to fear it.
The power to be given to iwi and hapu within the territory of each Three Waters entity goes further than their collective representation as mana whenua in the “governance” (choosing a panel that appoints the board) of the entities.
Each iwi and hapu (there could be hundreds within the territory) would also have the right to issue “statements” to which the entity would be legally obliged to respond. These, directives in effect, are called “Te Mana o te Wai” statements, a phrase not clearly defined but it is the governing principle of the legislation.
Māori cultural explainers tell us that in te ao Māori (Māori worldview) each body of water has its own mauri and tribal identity is closely linked to freshwater. For Māori, great care must be taken in managing human impacts on it. The implications of these values deserve more attention.
It is one thing to set up co-governance arrangements for geographic features that require mainly conservation, quite a different matter to impose these arrangements on vital economic resources. Water is used in just about every economic activity, its efficient allocation and delivery should be decided by objective measures of economic value, not just its “mana”.
If there is a case for co-governance of a natural body of water - a lake, river or sea coast claimed under Article II of the Treaty – it is hard to see a case for co-governance of the infrastructure that brings water from those sources and carries it away for treatment and disposal.
These facilities have been financed and built since colonisation by communities that should not be deprived of their democratic control.
Co-governance is just part of the plan to remove water infrastructure from accountability to those who pay for it. And that is the plan, stated shamelessly in the case for Three Waters reform, readable online.
Supposedly, the infrastructure has not been adequately maintained because councils have been afraid to present their ratepayers with the bill. Supposedly, the pipes will soon need replacement, improvement and extension beyond the capacity of councils to borrow or pay for it.
If these things are true, it does not follow that decisions on water infrastructure should be put beyond effective democratic control. People are not fooled by the argument Ardern used to offer – that Three Waters removes the costs from ratepayers. The entities’ borrowing would be secured by consumers who would no longer have an effective vote.
This is not only an outrage to democratic rights, it is economically unhealthy for any supplier of goods and services to face no possible resistance from its consumers. It is a recipe for over-investment, over-staffing, over regulation and waste.
The Government will surely produce its revision of Three Waters sometime this month. If the changes are merely cosmetic the Government will be April’s fool and risk October’s regret.
