Flavell Te Ururoa: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11742. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 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 Management 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 sort of reminds me of the dilemma over whether the glass is half full or half empty. Perhaps the only alternative is to drink the water and remove all doubt. The problem would be gone. 
 Taking that analogy speaking of water is of course highly appropriate today when we consider the new definition that the Crown has created—just yesterday in fact—of water: that “Taupo waters” does not include water itself. I do not know whether you heard that Mr Deputy Speaker so I will say it again for you: the definition of “Taupo waters” does not include water itself. In this definition “water” means beds soil space above space below and space in which the water exists but “Taupo waters” does not mean the water itself. 
Sadly it 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 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 if that is the way we define things in legislation? Will Maunga Ruapehu be defined as everything but the maunga? I get it: is “Maori land” going to mean everything except Maori land? Is “Tane Mahuta” the largest remaining kauri tree in all of Aotearoa going to be defined as everything but a tree? If this is to make any sense to anyone in the House and if we follow this sort of thinking then “sense” here will be defined as everything but sense—“nonsense” if you like. 
My attention was drawn to the complexity of water matters because of the amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill to provide Watercare Services with the same protection currently afforded to local authorities. In itself this amendment seems to fit the bill of being fairly non-controversial. In essence if through the process of excavation of drainage or of cabling a water pipe ends up getting wrecked then the same protection will be afforded to Watercare Services as is currently available to any local authority. This technical change is something the Maori Party is happy to support. 
But we come back to the question of whether if we follow the river through it will eventually find the sea. The sea change that is not being talked about in this legislation is the matter of multinational water incorporation like Metro Water in Auckland City or United Water in Papakura. The council might own the pipes but the operation and the management of water services becomes contracted out. They are contracted out to corporations that 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 Amendment Bill which was debated earlier this evening because the debate cannot be complete without acknowledging the impact and influence of global commercial interests that are looking to control water and sell it for profit. 
Part 31 of the original bill the Statutes Amendment Bill amends the Local Government Act 2002 by various amendments that confer on Watercare Services the same protections concurrently afforded to local authorities. Watercare Services is the water wholesaler for the Auckland region and is owned by various city councils that are water retailers. The water mains 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 intention is to create one super water company in Auckland that brings together individual retailing councils and private water companies such as Metro Water in Auckland City and United Water in Papakura and set up a single infrastructure. 
Maybe this is just the path of the future. Maybe Watercare is better able to contract out to water multinationals than any other retailers. We cannot deny the threat and consequences of yet more privatisation of water where private companies control water management and operations and draw off profits from the powerless public in excess of that required for infrastructure reinvestment. This is where we look carefully at the 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 Maori Party asks is whether the new user-charges for water the water meters and the corporate concept of water as a commodity which are increasingly being accepted or considered by many councils are congruent with Maori customary rights to water. 
The Local Government Act—the object of the amendments in Part 31 of the original bill—along with provision in the Resource Management Act 1991 actually serves to facilitate public-private partnership that enables the management of a resource such as water to be passed over to a profit-making company. We say that this is outright privatisation opening the floodgates to multinational companies. 
So why does this matter so much? As 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 Maori 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 Maori. 
What this Government has done to date is this: it has refined the Resource Management Act 1991 to allow water permits to be traded by councils and it has asserted Crown ownership of water through introducing the term “Crown stratum” into Treaty settlement legislation. In short it has set up the conditions for water permits to be sold off to private profit-driven companies that then overcharge to supply water to New Zealand households. The implications for this are in the first instance that water metering and water privatisation will make a huge difference to poorer New Zealanders who require water for cleaning cooking washing and drinking. In short it is one of the basic commodities that we cannot do without. Water under such a scenario also becomes what Moana Jackson has described as the ultimate raupatu. 
We in the Maori Party appreciate the close connection between the well-being of the people and the environmental state of the land and the rivers. Infused throughout our language is the vital importance of our waters—ko wai; no wai; na 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 and they nurture our natural landscapes and biodiversity. Indeed they are cultural icons of prime importance. 
With privatisation of water well under way in Aotearoa the amendments in this legislation may well be water under the bridge. But the key issue for us in the Maori Party is to ensure that the questions are raised and the issues 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 these bills and we will also continue to keep the debate high on the critical issues concerning water. 
Bills read a third time.