Flavell Te Ururoa: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10005] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe tena tatou katoa. Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I will make a small contribution following on a little from the Hon Steve Chadwick the previous speaker in respect of firstly the issue of water and secondly the issue of Maori representation in decision making. There is no doubt that water is a major issue for Maori. It has been discussed at the Iwi Leadership Group and in our own forums. We have said to the Minister for the Environment that any discussions about this bill that would possibly jeopardise the bigger discussion with regard to water need to be taken off the table because the substantive issue about the ownership of water will need some time to be considered seriously and although this issue is solely about Canterbury issues about the governance and management of water are something that we definitely want to be involved with. 
We know that it is a serious issue because the previous Labour Government ended up giving back the lake beds to Rotorua as the Hon Steve Chadwick said but without any water in them. But that is an issue that Te Arawa will indeed follow up at a point in time—possibly even by asking the Crown to pay out for the storage of the water in our lake for the time since the settlement went through. But I will cross that bridge down the line when our trust board possibly puts that to the Government at some point. 
It is clear that Maori want to have a say about water but at this point in time unfortunately systems like local bodies and sometimes even Parliament do not necessarily allow for that input to come through. The system does not necessarily allow that to come through but the Maori Party takes a view that relationships to local bodies are about a Treaty relationship that we take seriously. We suggest that in that Treaty relationship any decisions are all about both parties coming to agreement through discussion and obviously the right of veto of one party over the other is an important issue. It is about the views we present as a Maori Party and we would hope that Maori partners through sitting next to the Treaty partner on local bodies or as commissioners or otherwise have an important statement to make. We have asked the Minister in respect of that about a Treaty relationship in the bigger picture down the line and specifically we have placed that issue with him about this and water. We hope that he has taken that on board. 
We look towards Treaty relationships as being a way that might advance Maori aspirations and understanding about the importance of water. With regard to our feedback from Ngai Tahu we understand that up until this point they have not necessarily had the ability to make real inroads in the decision making around water. As the Minister has already said Ngai Tahu are reluctantly moving to support the passage of this bill. But there is the issue in respect of representation and Ngai Tahu have expressed frustration at their lack of involvement. 
We have been given assurances from the Minister that Ngai Tahu will have a position in and around the commission and at the table and although having possibly just one position is not the beginning and ending of everything two points are to be made: firstly we have a position that is important; and secondly we should not believe that just having a position by itself represents the sole Maori view. In fact we have expertise throughout Maoridom that could come into that commission to provide valuable input. So just one person should not be relied on to give the Maori input. But the good thing as I say is that the Minister is recognising the importance of having tangata whenua involvement in water. It would have been really good for the Hon Rodney Hide if he had seen this issue in terms of the Auckland super-city proposal but obviously he did not. 
I will close by saying that the discussion at our caucus was about what happens after the commission has completed its term in 3 or 4 years’ time having given its position and worked through all of the issues in respect of water that have been debated throughout the last day and a little bit. What will happen afterwards? Does it mean that OK we will go back to democratically elected positions? Well maybe we will and that has been the subject of debate throughout the last day or so. But my point to the Minister and certainly from our caucus is that having set the precedent for allowing Ngai Tahu as an example to have input into the decision-making process at least through the commission that line should be maintained after the end of the commission’s time by allowing it a position in the decision-making process as of right and outlined against the Treaty responsibilities and the Treaty perspective. 
We hope that as we move through—let us complete the time yes but after that we want to see Maori participation. Because basically it ain’t going to happen by simply believing that the democratic process will deliver a Maori input just as it has not happened in the past in Canterbury. That ain’t gonna happen—not in Canterbury. So we are looking at having set positions in those councils to ensure that the Maori input which is important in terms of a perspective about water and other things is heard and given and is allowed to contribute in the best interests of the community.