Free Press ACT’s regular bulletin

Lest we Forget

This week Free Press honours those who lost their lives so that we might live in a free society. Those who made the ultimate sacrifice, those who served in conflict, and those who continue to serve in the New Zealand Defence Force.

Water
We are bombarded with questions about the future of water in New Zealand. Are foreigners taking it? Are Maori claiming it? Who owns it? For a comprehensive view see David Seymour’s January essay here.

A Silly Statement
The Prime Minister is fond of saying ‘nobody owns water,’ but the statement is meaningless. The real questions are: who can take how much from where over what period of time, and what is the system for deciding that?

The Current System
Under the Resource Management Act, you can apply for a consent to take a certain amount of water from a certain place. Councils can grant a consent for up to 35 years, then it expires.

The Maori Claim
Some specific Iwi (not Maori in general) claim that their land should come with water rights. There is nothing wrong with these claims, so far as they go: land is not much good without irrigation, and if the land was wrongly taken then returned then perhaps some water rights should go with it. Everybody deserves their day in court.

A Worse Scenario
An alternative is co-governance. The Government has a penchant for setting up schemes where seats are reserved for Iwi representatives. One example is the Maunga Authority, which governs Auckland’s volcanic cones. Six out of twelve seats on the Authority are reserved for Iwi representatives, the other six for elected councillors and local board members.

Would it be so Bad?
Why can’t we all just get along? Maori were here first, it’s their place as Tangata Whenua. Surely one could argue that half the seats on a co-governance board adequately reflects the place of Maori as Tangata Whenua?

ACT’s Objection
One view is that reserving places for people based on who they are is incompatible with a free and democratic society. ACT believes a stronger objection is private property rights. A co-governance arrangement implies that some political panel will have power over how you use your property, and if that power will not be substantial, why make the arrangement?

The RMA Tie-in
The Government may inadvertently be creating a co-governance scheme for water nationwide. On the one hand the land and water forum would give councils greater power to administer water rights. The RMA reforms would require councils to agree with local Iwi on an Iwi Participation Agreement for making plans, and consult Iwi on the appointment of commissioners among other things.

A Better Example
We have been here before. When Iwi claimed rights to the fishery in 1992, the Crown awarded 20 per cent of fishing quota. Some will disagree with the settlement but, importantly, it preserved a marketplace with robust science around the overall level of catch but no political interference in the activity and certainly no ethnic appointments.

As ACT’s Fuller Essay Concluded
We can do the same with freshwater and water quality, by pricing water and allowing the use rights to be traded, all supported by a strong science research base to ensure we do not over-allocate water, while repairing the environmental damage already done to our rivers and lakes. But we need to do this without undermining the democratic arrangements governing local and regional government representation.

Bottled Water Exports Beat Up
Bottled water exports draw the usual anti-foreign xenophobia from the Greens and New Zealand First because people are making a mint by exporting tiny amounts of bottled water. We say tiny because it is 0.004 per cent of the annual fresh water supply. Free Press will review the situation when it gets to 0.005 per cent.

A Tunnel’s Got to Have A Name
The State Highway 16 extension from the airport to Waterview includes a 2.5km tunnel, designed to protect Helen Clark’s then electorate from motorway expansion. In most countries such a tunnel would be named, but New Zealand tunnels are curiously nameless. Free Press notices John Key warming to Helen Clark as she contests the UN’s top job. We suggest that if she loses Key could name it the Clark Tunnel as a consolation.

A Conflict of Interest?
A Week in Parliament is a rather dreary and little known radio program summarising what happens in Parliament. Free Press understands that it is paid for by Parliament, which is ultimately governed by the Speaker and his deputies. Last week the program ran a banana-republic style show where poor old Deputy Speaker Chester Borrows slagged off David Seymour, completely unchallenged by the interviewer. Free Press looks forward to the real Speaker restoring probity when he returns from the Speakers’ Junket (Tour) to Latin America where he has no doubt learned about facing down corruption.

ENDS

© Scoop Media