OPINION:
Last week, the High Court stopped the misguided destruction of huts and bridges located in the former Urewera National Park. A co-governance area managed by DoC and the Tūhoe tribal organisation, Te Uru Taumatua (TUT). A case of judicial tut, tut.
When the Tūhoe settlement was concluded with the National Government in 2014, it included the termination of Crown ownership of Urewera National Park. Similar to the Whanganui River iwi settlement, politicians conferred upon this sweep of land and lake environment its own legal personality.
New Zealand has a host of companies and trusts with their own legal personality. Generally, these entities carry the same rights and responsibilities as a person. If you are looking after such entities a legal duty of care is required and your conduct can be judicially tested.
The management of this 2000ha Urewera wilderness was vested in a statutory board, with membership split equally between the Crown and Tūhoe. However, that balance has now changed to Tūhoe holding the majority of board positions.
This satisfies Tūhoe paramount leader Tamati Kruger, a well-known university-qualified Māori educator. For him, public interest in the Urewera park seems to be akin to a possum, something to be managed out of existence.
He is chairman of the iwi organisation that approved the destruction of the Urewera huts. His office is in the town of Taneatua, which translates as male God.
Fortunately for the locals and the public, the High Court has landed a blow for common sense and affirmed that co-governance is not God’s law. Most importantly, the rights of the public cannot be arbitrarily pushed aside in favour of dreamy aspirations of Māori sovereignty.
Tellingly, the successful court action was taken by a local member of the Tūhoe tribe. The speed and clarity of the court decision should give heart to local iwi members that they can secure accountability from their leaders.
Co-governance excesses have also been on display in Auckland. In 2014, ownership of most of the volcanic cones, maunga, of Auckland was transferred to the Tūpuna Maunga Authority. It comprises equal membership from iwi and the Auckland council.
Not unlike the Tūhoe experience, this co-governance body has paid insufficient attention to matters of public interest. It decided to eradicate exotic trees from the cone landscape. Symbols of colonialism, one presumes.
Although the Super City is required to deliver operational outcomes for this co-governance cone body, officials did not engage with the local community to the satisfaction of the Court of Appeal. The upshot is that iwi ecological de-colonisation efforts have been ruled out of order.
These two judicial examples reveal that co-governance can easily become a platform of discord -especially if the Crown/council appointees are not robust in their defence of the public interest.
The iwi approaches these matters with a very clear agenda: the expansion of influence and future leverage for political and economic purposes. The public interest, however, is meant to be safeguarded in both the Urewera park and the Auckland volcanic cones. The members of co-governance bodies trifle with this obligation at their legal peril.
These two judicial encounters show what lurks in the pool of Three Waters as Labour pushes on with its co-governance agenda. Addressing the recent select committee report, Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta was steadfast, telling the media that people have lost sight of what matters in stormwater, taps and sewage plants.
Shrouded in her commentary are new mana o te wai legal instruments, local iwi ordinances that will bind the new Three Waters corporations. Courts will have to make sense of these edicts. Are they a new iwi water consent regime?
Despite vain ministerial hopes, voters have not lost sight of this minefield, rather it is firmly in scope. Labour will squeeze the legislation through this parliamentary portal. However, all passageways have an entrance and an exit. Electoral ushers will show them the latter.
The minister is undeterred, declaring to the media that she has been the only minister for over 20 years brave enough to come up with solutions. Words of a martyr to the cause of iwi co-governance or a political genius who will magic up $150 billion?
Given so many councils now have elected Māori representatives, why does she need to give iwi veto rights over the future governance of these council assets? If one doubts this potential outcome, simply look at the judicial decisions concerning Tūhoe and volcanic cone co-governance.
Premises and staff are already being secured to implement the Three Waters reform, a sign that Minister Mahuta intends to damn the torpedoes and proceed full steam ahead. Scenes of electoral movieland action beckon. Sadly for her caucus colleagues, this is not Hollywood.
Overloading any vessel, such as the Labour waka, preparing to motor into rough seas is perilous. With precious little freeboard it is nigh impossible to manoeuvre, something that is very handy in politics.
Next year, the Prime Minister will need every one of her backbenchers on the electoral bilge pumps. However, not even that will save her from being swamped by the deadweight of iwi co-governance and dissolution of public interest. That verdict will be delivered by voters and not jurists.
Shane Jones is a former Labour MP and NZ First MP and was the first Minister for Regional Economic Development.
The woman was shaken by the incident.