top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

PETER WILLIAMS: Why are we waiting?

The Ngai Tahu water case is clogged in a judge's chambers


There are no official records for New Zealand’s longest delay between a court hearing and the judgement.


High Court guidelines say judges expect 90 percent of reserved decisions to be delivered within three months of the last day of the hearing. The Chief High Court Judge regards a reserved judgement as being “outstanding beyond a reasonable time” once six months have elapsed.


So where does that leave Justice Melanie Harland and her decision on the Ngai Tahu Freshwater Statement of Claim hearing which finished on April 4th last year?


That’s sixteen months since the hearing ended. Although records on the longest delay are not kept it’s entirely possible this is the largest time lapse ever between hearing and judgement in our judicial history.


With an election now less than three months away it’s entirely possible Her Honour will not be delivering anything this side of November 7th.


To recap: Ngai Tahu were beneficiaries of a $170 million Treaty settlement in 1998 and subsequent top-up relativity payments of $276 million. That’s been invested in a variety of business and property ventures so successfully that Ngai Tahu Holdings now has assets worth in excess of $2 billion.


But that’s not enough. They want more, and more.


In 2024 the iwi extracted at least $100 million from Meridian and Genesis so the power companies could continue using Waitaki River water to generate 16 percent of the country’s electricity.


In recent weeks the Department of Conservation named Ngai Tahu as the preferred operator for the Crown owned Molesworth Station, the country’s largest farm.


Then in an eight week hearing in the High Court at Christchurch early last year Ngai Tahu asked that declarations be made giving Ngai Tahu rangatiratanga over all freshwater in the iwi’s takiwa or region, effectively all the South Island apart from some areas around Nelson and Marlborough.


To quote the former Ngai Tahu boss Lisa Tumahai: “Rangatiratanga is not ownership. Owning something means using it however you like. Rangatiratanga as a concept and a practice encompasses rights, responsibilities and obligations. And that includes the obligation to do what we can to stop the continued degradation of our freshwater systems.”


Ngai Tahu believe that much South Island water has become polluted because of intensive dairying.


The case reported on 1News tonight (August 9th) of a school in Mid Canterbury having a nitrate level in its water supply of 11.5 milligrams per litre of water (mg/l) would reinforce that claim.


The World Health Organisation approved level for safe drinking water is 11.3 mg/l.


Some scientists claim that high nitrate levels in water cause both birth defects and colorectal cancer.


The claim by Ngai Tahu is complicated from a scientific, environmental and political perspective.


That some rivers and lakes in the South Island have high nitrate levels cannot be denied. There are also some other rivers which are almost pure. I live beside the Clutha and we take our water from a bore 27 metres down in the Bendigo Aquifer. Our nitrate level is a negligible 0.114 mg/cubic metre or 1000 litres, and that’s with a 2,800 hectare corporate dairy operation about 40 kilometres upstream near Hawea.


But the braided rivers of the Canterbury Plains are under severe pressure from the intensive dairying operations which have converted the traditional Canterbury mixed farming operation that prevailed till the 1990s.


As of the 2023/24 season there were 1200 dairy herds in Canterbury making up 971,500 milking cows and 280,500 effective hectares of dairy production. The average of 3.4 cows per hectare is significantly higher than the New Zealand average of 2.7.


Canterbury now has about 17 percent of the country’s entire dairy farming land. But then we’re talking about the country’s largest export earner here. To the end of June this year the country’s dairy farmers and processors earned over $28 billion selling their product around the world.


So it’s a conundrum. What’s more important? Making a living or keeping the Canterbury Plains water safe for drinking and playing in.


The answer surely lies in having balance between the two.


Ngai Tahu believes they should be given a prominent role in decisions about freshwater, but their own role in creating the problem can’t be ignored either. Ngai Tahu owns eight dairy farms with over 8000 cows. It’s the second largest dairy farmer in Canterbury.


The iwi also has 2 appointed councillors on the Canterbury Regional Council, the body responsible for water allocation and quality in the region.


The current government wants to amend the hierarchy of what one might call a water philosophy, known as Te Mana o Te Wai or TMOTW. This was designed with a hierarchy of obligations whereby the health of the water was placed above the health of the population and the economic benefits that could be derived from use of the water.


A legislated change to TMOTW will only happen if the new resource management laws are passed before the end of this parliamentary term.


Ngai Tahu’s claim for rangatiratanga over freshwater might have far reaching consequences. Justice Harland may well find that the iwi has ownership-like rights and that the Crown’s assumption of exclusive control over freshwater was inconsistent with Treaty guarantees. That could lead to new water allocation mechanisms, potentially including economic recognition of Ngai Tahu interests.


Which means all bets are off when it comes to hydro-electric and irrigation schemes.


Even a middle-ground outcome whereby the judge concludes that Ngai Tahu ‘s customary rights have not been adequately recognised will have consequences in the future. That’s because existing consent holders could retain their rights till those consents expire but renewals will be subject to new governance and financial arrangements.


The best outcome is that Justice Harland finds that existing legislation substantially accommodates the Crown’s obligations and that water users face no threats to their supply or the cost of water now or into the future.


Her Honour must know that whatever she decides will have a huge impact on the South Island economy.


In a worst case scenario Ngai Tahu, already an economic powerhouse in Canterbury especially, and with no limit to their ambition, will effectively be calling the tune for agriculture across the country’s most productive provinces, and farmers will be paying the piper.


A judgement before the election is likely to provoke severe political backlash either way. The matter will almost certainly go to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court so the case still has considerable time to run.


Even so, sixteen months and counting for the initial judgement strikes this lay person as an absurdly long wait.


Writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Subscribe to Peter William's Substack here

 
 
 

187 Comments


Looks like MacWeedie hightailed it out of here when confronted by intellectually better-resourced opponents lol.

Like
winder44
winder44
Aug 12
Replying to

Unfortunately you are correct in almost details. As a ten year old I heard the words of truth from an eighty plus year old maori elder whose tribal remnants escaped the slaughter of Puke rangiora, and travelled to Tarata, and comparative safety.

Like

aristan
Aug 10

Ngāi Tahu rangatiratanga was recognised in the 1997 settlement with the Crown and in the act passed by Parliament in 1998 to make the settlement law. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is asking the courts to make declarations that they have rangatiratanga over the wai māori (freshwater) and that the Crown should engage with them to jointly design a better system to manage and care for the waterways.


Rangatiratanga is not ownership. Owning something means using it however you like. Rangatiratanga as a concept and a practice encompasses rights, responsibilities and obligations. And that includes the obligation to stop the continued degradation of our freshwater systems. The water quality must be pretty poor for them to take their claim to…

Like
Replying to

Well said

Like

Mick
Aug 10

What is wrong with our politicians? Successive governments have allowed - and encouraged - these money hungry Ngai Tahu racists to rob New Zealanders blind. Something similar happened in France in 1789. That didn't end well for the 'ruling class'.

Like

Bazza
Bazza
Aug 10

About time we had a few science lessons on water. It neither enters nor leaves this planet. It evaporates and condenses , at varying rates, in different places. Airstreams move across Australia, over the Tasman Sea, picking up moisture which it then dumps in the southern alps. It may also some up from the Antarctic, or down from the Tropics. It passes across the Canterbury plains, as a river, underground streams. It evaporates at varying rates to return to the sky, it empties into the Sea at various river mouths. Sometimes its crystal clear, emerald snow melt, other times its muddy brown and full of silt after high rainfall. Some we drink, and expire through breathing, sweating or peei…

Like
Replying to

Māori King


‘Maori king’ or ‘queen?’


Latest in a raggedy-arsed line of self-anointed Tainui upstarts. Set up by Tainui—who never signed Te Tiriti to create a rival sovereignty to the Crown as a rallying point for anti-Pakeha, anti-Crown, and anti-Treaty sentiment.


Only ever accepted as such by the Tainui tribes and a handful of rebels who’d signed Te Tiriti then had buyer’s remorse.


The vast majority of Māori tribes do not recognise this fake-ass upstart


‘King/Queen of Huntly’ more like.


Hopefully when this fraud

gets up from his/her throne’ s/he remembers to flush, brush, and open the window.


Sir Bob Jones' take on the last so-called maori king:


So, the comical Ngaruawahia ex-truck driver who can't speak Maori and struggles…


Like

Rangatiratanga means something like this; chieftainship, autonomy, self determination & the right to make decisions about one's own land, people & culture.


So how does this concept apply to ngai tahu? It doesn't. Why? Because the NZ polynesian (maori) tribe called ngai tahu, by the early 1900's, ceased to be an ethnically/culturally homogenous people. In fact, they're much more ethnically/culturally European than maori.


Yes, those who claim to be & represent ngai tahu have every right to make decisions about what to do on their land own land & how they operate their businesses, but thats about the size of it. Everthing else is mafia like bullshit.


By completely misrepresenting who they actually are & climbing onto the treaty revisionist/grievance…


Edited
Like
aristan
Aug 13
Replying to

Let’s be honest, you have no idea what Freeman did or did not assume regarding the pretentious ‘diplomatese’ more suitable for its intended overseas audience. Actually the English treaty was not “pretentious diplomatese” but quite appropriate for government official documentation. You are looking at it through a 21st century lens; it was written on Feb 4th 1840 remember.

Edited
Like

©2021 by Bassett, Brash & Hide. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page