Submission re Freshwater Consultation 2016

Transcription

1 20 th April 2016 Submission re Freshwater Consultation 2016 To Ministry for the Environment, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143 RE Next Steps for Fresh water: consultation document Thank you for this opportunity to submit on the consultation document Next steps for fresh water. This submission has been prepared on behalf of Democracy Action. It does not necessarily reflect all the views of any or all members of Democracy Action, but it does reflect the group s overall view. Democracy Action was established in 2012 in Auckland by a group of citizens concerned about the erosion of democratic principles in the Auckland Council s governance of Auckland and the Hauraki Gulf. We now have members throughout New Zealand. Our website is: Lee Short, Secretary, Democracy Action Contact details are: Democracy Action Democracy Action supports the Government s review of the management of fresh water in New Zealand. We seek better environmental outcomes. Cleaner waterways, and the fairer, more rational allocation of this priceless resource are issues which are in urgent need of addressing. We are broadly supportive of the proposals in the Fresh water and Our Environment section. Our submission is confined to the proposals which pose a threat to New Zealand s democratic principles, values and traditions. It is the response of Democracy Action to the policy proposals presented in the Iwi Rights and Interests section of Appendix 1 of the Next Steps for Fresh Water: Consultation Document. We oppose all objectives, aims and proposals in the document which give iwi preferential treatment. In particular, we object to the following proposals in the section headed Iwi Rights and Interests in Fresh Water : Enabling iwi and councils to agree how to work together Proposal 3.5 The Government will amend the Resource Management Act to establish provisions for a new rohe (region or catchment)-based agreement Submission re Freshwater Consultation 2016 Democracy Action, 20 th April 2016 Page 1 of 5

2 between iwi and councils for natural resource management a mana whakahono a rohe agreement. The mana whakahono a rohe will: be initiated by iwi through notice to the councils be available to all iwi but will not override or replace existing arrangements for natural resource management in Treaty of Waitangi settlements nor preclude agreement of different arrangements under a Treaty settlement provide for multiple iwi involvement where appropriate and agreed set out how iwi and council(s) will work together in relation to planmaking, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities include review and dispute resolution processes. Response: The obligations set out in clause 3.5 are a move towards cogovernance of natural resources, the result of which would be the transfer of councils current powers and responsibilities regarding natural resource management to this proposed co-governance structure. The emergence of such partnership agreements between local bodies and iwi authorities create a new agency of government which sits outside the normal constitutional relationship between the citizens of New Zealand and agents of the state. This is a serious breach of our customary constitutional arrangements. We strongly object to these provisions. Reasons They represent a significant constitutional change which is contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy; Such arrangements, giving iwi/hapu more power and control over natural resources than other members of the public, afford one racial group a superior legal status; They are contrary to the principles of equality in the Rule of law. They go against the fundamental rule of law principles: law should not be used to harm or benefit a particular group, and rules should apply to everyone affected by it equally ; They embed in law privileges that depend on ethnic identity. Permanent ancestral authority is entrenched; They are incompatible with the principle of equality of citizens; They interfere with the duty of councillors to act in the best interest of all their citizens; They are discriminatory. They give unearned, inherited power over fellow citizens and over the local government organs that should be there for all without discrimination; They give a major role to unelected people, and therefore bypasses democracy s prospect of ejection of the powerful by those subject to power, for non-performance or abuse of that power; Submission re Freshwater Consultation 2016 Democracy Action, 20 th April 2016 Page 2 of 5

3 They give crucial influence and power to people whose express purpose is to favour their own; The presumption of a special contribution or expertise by way of an inherited right does not ensure that the people who will exercise these powers can bring something useful to the table. Water Conservation Orders Proposal 3.6 The Government will amend the Resource Management Act to: require water conservation order (WCO) applications to provide evidence of consultation with relevant iwi and have one person nominated by the relevant iwi represented on the Special Tribunal convened to hear the application require the Special Tribunal for a WCO (and, where relevant, the Environment Court) to consider the needs of iwi/tāngata whenua require WCO applications to consider any planning processes already underway allow the Minister for the Environment to delay an application if there will be a conflict with a regional planning process allow councils to recommend to the Minister for the Environment that a WCO be created over an outstanding water body that has been identified through regional planning, and allow the Minister to consider recommendations under a streamlined procedure. require water conservation order (WCO) applications to provide evidence of consultation with relevant iwi and have one person nominated by the relevant iwi represented on the Special Tribunal convened to hear the application Response: We oppose the proposed amendment to the RMA designed to ensure iwi representation, thereby establishing co-governance Tribunals for hearing WCO applications. Reasons: Contravenes democratic control of local government powers; It is discriminatory. It embeds in law privileges that depend on ethnic identity. Permanent ancestral authority is entrenched, giving inherited power over fellow citizens; A special contribution or expertise by way of an inherited right is presumed, and not necessarily justifiable; Crucial influence and power is given to people whose express purpose is to favour their own. It is at odds with the fundamental rule of law principle: law should not be used to harm or benefit a particular group ; Submission re Freshwater Consultation 2016 Democracy Action, 20 th April 2016 Page 3 of 5

4 The clause require water conservation order (WCO) applications to provide evidence of consultation with relevant iwi and have one person nominated by the relevant iwi represented on the Special Tribunal convened to hear the application could be interpreted in such a way that allows for multiple iwi representation on a Special Tribunal convened to hear a WCO application, thereby exponentially increasing the influence and power of those whose express purpose is to favour their own. Implementation support Proposal 3.7 The Ministry for the Environment will facilitate and resource programmes to support councils and iwi/hapū to engage effectively in freshwater planning and decision-making, including collaborative planning Response: We strongly object to this proposal to enable the establishment of co-governance capacity building, with the taxpayer being required to foot the bill. This comes at a cost not only to the taxpayer, but also at the expense of democracy. As poll after poll has shown, mandatory race-based representation on government decision-making bodies goes against the will of the wider community. Summary: All New Zealanders share, without any distinction, rights and interests in fresh water. Democracy Action unreservedly supports the inclusion of iwi groups and the general public, alongside all other stakeholders, in having a say on freshwater values, objectives and limits. However, we strongly object to all proposals in the section Iwi Rights and Interests in Fresh Water which are directed at giving one group superior legal status. These proposals embed in law privileges that depend on ethnic identity. They entrench permanent ancestral authority. They discriminate, giving unearned inherited power over fellow citizens and over the local government organs that should be there for all without discrimination. The proposals in section Iwi Rights and Interests in Fresh Water represent a significant constitutional change that is contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy. They establish a political system where the power and authority of one party iwi - is unchallengeable by the wider community. That party is not appointed by the people and is not therefore accountable to the people. This is contrary to the LGA (2002) which requires local governments to reconcile diverse communities of interest using democratic methods. Therefore we strongly oppose the proposals for mana whakahono a rohe agreements between iwi and councils for natural resource management; public funding of such agreements; and race-based appointments on Special Tribunals convened to hear Water Conservation Order applications. Submission re Freshwater Consultation 2016 Democracy Action, 20 th April 2016 Page 4 of 5

5 One of the most precious gifts entrusted to our elected representatives is that they respect our democracy, and the equality of citizenship upon which it is based. Issues of significance to Maori deserve all due respect, but they must not be used as a vehicle to introduce governance arrangements that compromise the principles, and the integrity of our democracy. Democracy Action thanks the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Primary Industries for this opportunity to make a submission on the Next Steps for Fresh Water: Consultation Document. Submission re Freshwater Consultation 2016 Democracy Action, 20 th April 2016 Page 5 of 5