Statutes Amendment - When is 'sense', non-sense?

A week ago we were debating this latest omnibus Bill to come before the House - bringing together issues as wide ranging as endangered species, real estate agents, lawyers and conveyancers, and volunteers all in one heap of amendments.

It is always difficult when we are faced with omnibus efforts to identify the absolute critical points apparent - or perhaps hidden - in the legislation.

Is it all for the best that section 253 of the Resource Amendment Act is amended to enable the Attorney-General and not the Minister of Justice to appoint Environment Commissioners and Deputy Environment Commissioners?

What is the compliance cost of the change?

It reminds me of that dilemma over whether the glass if half full or half empty. Perhaps the only alternative is to drink the water and remove all doubt. Problem gone.

Talking of water is of course highly appropriate today when we consider the new definition that the Crown has created just yesterday of water, that “Taupo Waters does not include the water itself”.

That’s right - water means beds, soil, space above, space below, space in which the water exists, but ‘Taupo Waters’ does not include the water itself.

It sadly reminds me of the introduction of the notion of Crown stratum first mooted in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act. If the House recalls, this was the first time that the Crown had overtly claimed in legislation that the lake water was vested in the Crown.

The peculiar formula applied was that the Crown owned the stratum - or the space within which the water exists, not the water itself.

What the hang is going to be next?

Will Maunga Ruapehu be defined as everything but the maunga?

I get it now....

Maori land means everything except Maori land?

Tane Mahuta, the largest remaining kauri tree in all of Aotearoa, being defined as everything but the tree?

Well if this actually makes sense to anyone in this House, then to follow this sort of thinking, sense here will be defined as everything but sense. Non -sense if you like.

Mr Speaker, my attention was drawn to the complexity of water matters because of the amendment in this Statutes Amendment Act to provide Watercare with the same protection currently afforded to local authorities.

In itself, Mr Speaker, this amendment seems to fit the bill of being fairly non-controversial.

In essence, if through the processes of excavation; of drainage; of cabling, a water pipe ends up getting wrecked, then the same protection will be afforded to Watercare Services Limited as is currently available to any local authorities.

This technical change is something that the Māori Party is happy to support.

But we come back to that question of - if we follow the river through, will we eventually find the sea?

And the sea-change that is not being talked about in this bill is the issue of multi-national water corporations like with Metrowater in Auckland City or United Water in Papakura.

The Council might still own the pipes, but the operation and management of water services becomes contracted out.

They are contracted out to corporations which accrue private profit from public infrastructure without actually owning it, and without making any form of payment back to the public who do.

It is of course interesting that we are discussing this issue tonight, in the context of the International Finance Agreements Bill that was debated earlier this evening.

Because the debate can not be complete without acknowledging the impact and influence of global commercial interests which are looking to control water and sell it for profit.

In this Statutes Amendment Bill, part 31 of the Local Government Act 2002 will be amended by various amendments which confer on Watercare Services the same protections currently afforded to local authorities.

Watercare Services is the water wholesaler for the Auckland region, and is owned by the various City Councils who are the water retailers. The water mines are owned by Watercare and the local pipes are owned by each Council.

Where it becomes of interest to Parliament is the fact that Watercare’s intentions is to create one super water company in Auckland which brings together individual retailing councils, private water companies such as Metrowater in Auckland City and United Water in Papakura, and set up a singular infrastructure.

Maybe this is just the path of the future, Mr Speaker, - maybe Watercare is better able to contract out to water multi-nationals than other retailers?

We can not deny the threat, and consequences, of yet more privatization of water where private companies control water management and operations and draw off profits from a powerless public in excess of that required for infrastructure reinvestment.

And this is where, Mr Speaker, we look carefully at amendments like the consequential amendments to the Local Government Act to test whether the only damage that is being considered is damage costs for wrecked pipes.

What the Māori Party asks is whether the new user-charges for water, the water meters, the corporate concept of water as a commodity - that are increasingly being accepted or considered by many councils - is congruent with Māori customary rights to water.

The Local Government Act - the object of the amendments in this Bill - along with provisions in the Resource Management Act 1991, actually serves to facilitate public private partnership which enables the management of a resource such as water to be passed over to a profit making company.

We say this is outright privatization, opening the floodgates to multi-national companies.

So why does this matter so much Mr Speaker?

Ko tangata whenua, we see water as a living entity, with a mauri of its own.



The very clear advice that consultation has revealed is that Māori customary rights to water still exist or at the very least are contestable in Court.



Any Crown presumption of ownership will therefore be challenged - and will continue to be challenged - by Māori.



Mr Speaker, what this Government has done to date is this:



They have refined the Resource Management Act 1991 to allow water permits to be traded by councils;


They have asserted Crown ownership of water through introducing the term 'Crown Stratum' into Treaty settlement legislation;


In short, set up the conditions for water permits to be sold off to private profit-driven companies who then over-charge to supply water to New Zealand households.


The implications for this are in the first instance that water metering, water privatization, will make a huge difference to poorer New Zealanders - who require water for cleaning, cooking, washing and drinking -in short a basic commodities that we can’t do without.



Water under such a scenario also becomes what Moana Jackson has described as the ultimate raupatu.



Mr Speaker, we in the Māori Party appreciate the close connection between the wellbeing of the people and the environmental state of the land and rivers.



Infused throughout our language is the vital importance of our waters - Ko wai; No wai; Nā wai - whether we are referring to our tribal tributaries or our umbilical waters, the significance of protecting water as our tribal taonga is upheld.



Our waterways are historically tribal sources of major food supplies, they nurture our natural landscapes and bio-diversity, indeed they are cultural icons of prime importance.



Mr Speaker, with privatisation of water well under way in Aotearoa, the amendments in this Bill may well be water under the bridge.



But the key issue for us in the Māori Party is to ensure that the questions are raised, the issues are aired, so that we can in all honesty ensure that the availability of clean, free drinking water does not end up a mirage.



The Maori Party will support the Third reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill and we will also continue to keep the debate high on the critical issues concerning water.