Bryce Edwards
democracyproject.nz
Dr Bryce Edwards is Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the director of the Democracy Project.
Earlier this month leftwing columnist Chris Trotter argued that the water reforms are less about the ideal way of fixing water infrastructure problems and more about implementing a radical solution to the question of who owns water in this country. And he complains “That [Mahuta] has been less-than-forthcoming about her true intentions can hardly be presented as a government acting in good faith”
see: Labour adrift in dangerous waters ( paywalled).
In Trotter’s view, Mahuta has designed the new entities so
“Iwi will exercise veto power over all important policy decisions”, and “iwi authorities will become the beneficiaries of what to most observers will look like water royalties in perpetuity”.
He argues the Minister has pushed this through Cabinet with the help of the Maori caucus, with colleagues being too intimidated to object:
“her Pakeha colleagues will not call ‘Taihoa!’ In the ideological hothouse of the contemporary Left, the slightest challenge to an indigenous agenda is taken as proof of unreconstructed ‘White privilege’. As such it spells certain career death. So, silence reigns – even as danger approaches.”
In another column, Trotter also suggests that in the current climate in which the Government has so clearly failed Maori in terms of the vaccination rollout, “the Labour leadership felt obliged to back their own Maori caucus’s agenda without reservation”
– see: Looking forward to 2022.
Damaging local government fights loom
One victim of the Government’s decision is its own relationship with local government. There have been plenty of visceral reactions from the local authorities themselves – see, for example, RNZ’s Three Waters: Mayors respond to government’s brute force approach.
As Thomas Coughlan points out, the damage to local government trust in central government is likely to be significant:
“councils have every reason to be furious at the Mahuta. Having previously said the reforms would be essentially voluntary, the Government changed its mind and made the changes compulsory when it realised it wouldn’t get its way. Future negotiations with councils are likely to be tainted with the knowledge that the Government isn’t coming to the table in good faith.”
For the best explanation of how this move will destroy that relationship, see Peter Dunne’s latest column, which argues that although the Minister of Local Government has recently said some nice sounding words about the value of local democracy, “actions she and her government have taken since then show not only that the government no interest in working constructively with local government, but also that the Minister’s words were no more than waffling poppycock that cannot be taken seriously”
– see: Words count, Minister.
Dunne argues that “What fluttering shreds remained of her credibility were completely ripped away by Mahuta’s announcement.” He also points out that her process has failed to involve the public:
“The group with the biggest stake of all in the management of water resources – local communities – have not yet been consulted at all at this stage, so it is unclear what they think of the idea.”
But he’s got a solution – next year’s local government elections will be a chance for candidates and the public to debate and send a message on the Government’s reforms:
“The obvious opportunity for hearing what the public – or at least the portion of it that bothers to vote – thinks will be at the next local government elections now less than a year away. But the last thing the Minister of Local Government and her colleagues want is the local body elections to become a referendum on the Three Waters plans, hence the decision to proceed at this point.”
Heather du Plessis-Allan also thinks the Government will be vulnerable at upcoming elections, arguing in her latest column that Mahuta has “pushed the nuclear button on the Three Waters reform and potentially picked herself a big fight”.
Here’s du Plessis-Allan’s key point:
“The confiscations might be law this year, but they don’t’ take effect until 2024. But between now and then we have two sets of elections. The local government elections next year, and then the central government elections in 2023. So Mahuta has just given mayoral candidates and council candidates in every single territorial authority something to complain about next year. And they will. And the targets of their complaints will be Mahuta, Labour and confiscation and iwi governance. It cannot be good to have election campaigns up and down New Zealand fought on whether Labour are a ‘revolting pack of thieving liars’ as one councillor said today. So, politically, this feels like a bad idea all round.”
These elections will however present a difficult decision for Labour-aligned candidates. Coughlan says:
“Labour-aligned councillors with an eye on a seat in Parliament will face a difficult choice between backing concerns of constituents now at the risk of aggravating the party that they hope will eventually send them to Parliament.”
And could the decision help bring down Labour MPs and the Government at the next general election? Former Christchurch mayor Garry Moore thinks so, believing that anger over the fast-tracked amalgamation will fester
– see: Labour MPs risk election backlash over water reforms.
On the other hand, Labour will be calculating that by championing greater iwi control of water they have a better chance of winning Maori votes and wining all the Maori seats.
Finally, there is currently a major Local Government Review being undertaken by the Government, with some arguing that this should have preceded any decisions about how to manage water resources. But there are bigger questions about why local government has so little power and resources, and for a good explanation and discussion of this, see Josh Van Veen’s The Problem with local government.
This article can be republished under a Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0 license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project.