Māori Elite Have Never Given Up

Geoff Parker’s article below only serves to prove Māori elite have never given up the struggle for ownership/control of NZ’s freshwater!

Matthew Tukaki’s claims of Māori’s right to water ownership are those of a man beating a broken drum. Broken drums, you can’t beat them.

Māori elite came so very close to “owning” water thanks to Labour, in 2022, pushing the Three Waters Reform Bill through parliament despite huge opposition. And Māori elite have never forgiven the coalition government for overturning the Three Waters legislation in February, 2024!

Māori claiming ownership of our water should not surprise us and is nothing new.

You only have to look back to 2012 when the Māori king at the time, Tuheitia, proclaimed – “We have always owned the water!” He went further by stating “the ultimate goal for iwi is to regain management and control of water…”

They had come so close to having the ability to hold the country to ransom. Witness John Tamihere, in 2022 claiming – “To what extent do you have a conversation with the generators on the Waikato to say, ‘times up, there’s got to be a levy here’?”

Ardern’s government bestowed on Māori the Power of Veto!

The Power of Veto gave Māori the absolute power to block, stop and finally control all aspects of fresh water in New Zealand. Full control in the hands of the minority.

With the Three Waters Bill, 75 per cent approval, in a 12-person board, is required for any decision to be confirmed. Yet tribal interest would have made up 50 per cent of the board.

That means no decisions would have been made without the approval of iwi. In effect, iwi would have had a veto right and be in control of all New Zealand water services decision-making.

We must not fall into that trap again.

Control of the water has nothing to do with guardianship, nothing to do with cultural identity, nothing to do with the treaty. It is all about the financial benefits that would accrue from ownership!

We were not only talking about our natural waterways but also our water storage, delivery and use. Māori elite and their activist ‘soldiers’ have long known that enormous financial benefits would ensue from gaining control of this vital resource.

There are so many flaws in Tukaki’s reasoning: If anything, I say Geoff has been too kind to Tukaki. Māori elite’s posturing around getting their hands in the cash register is continually wrapped and swathed in expressive statements purporting to portray a superior environmental minded guardianship.

It is nothing but CULTURAL BULLSHIT!

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2026/03/geoff-parker-matthew-tukaki-is-wrong.html

Matthew Tukaki’s recent article “Wai Is Life” argues that because water is spiritually and culturally central to Māori identity, Māori must therefore exercise authority over water governance in New Zealand.

It is a seductive argument. It is also wrong.

No one disputes that water matters deeply to Māori. Many New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori alike, share strong cultural, spiritual, and environmental connections to rivers, lakes, and coastlines. But none of this answers the central question Tukaki avoids: why cultural belief should confer political power over everyone else.

In a democracy, that is not a trivial omission.

Respect for Culture Does Not Confer Authority

Tukaki repeatedly blurs the line between belief and governance. He treats spiritual attachment as if it were a constitutional credential.

It is not.

New Zealand is supposedly a secular, democratic state, governed by law rather than belief. Laws are made through Parliament. Public resources are managed through accountable institutions. They are not allocated on the basis of ancestry, genealogy, or worldview.

If cultural significance alone conferred governing authority, no shared system could exist. Competing identities would replace equal citizenship, and democracy would fracture under permanent grievance.

The Whanganui River Is Not a Constitutional Template

Tukaki cites the legal personhood of the Whanganui River as proof that Māori claims to authority over water are now recognised in law.

This is misleading.

That arrangement was a political settlement designed to resolve a specific historical dispute. It did not transfer sovereignty. It did not establish Māori ownership of water. It did not create a general principle that rivers or water infrastructure fall under iwi authority.

It was an accommodation within the existing constitutional order – not a redefinition of it.

The Waikato River Is Often Misrepresented

Proponents often point to Tainui involvement in the Waikato River as evidence of Māori control over water. In reality, the Waikato River arrangements are a statutory settlement created by parliament. Ultimate authority remains with elected institutions. Tainui participation exists by legislative choice, not constitutional right.

Te Tiriti Does Not Say What Is Claimed

Tukaki asserts that Te Tiriti affirmed Māori rangatiratanga (authority) over waterways. He does not acknowledge that sovereignty was ceded to the Crown – a settled constitutional reality repeatedly recognised by the courts, even while Treaty obligations are enforced within that framework.

Rangatiratanga, whatever its scope, exists within that framework. It does not override parliamentary authority, and it does not create a permanent, ancestry-based claim to control public resources.

If it did, New Zealand’s entire water system – dams, treatment plants, reticulation networks – would already be unlawful. They are not.

Infrastructure Failure Is Not Ethnic Exclusion

Polluted waterways, wastewater overflows, flooding, and degraded infrastructure are genuine problems. But they are not evidence of Māori exclusion from governance.

They are the result of decades of poor policy, underinvestment, and regulatory failure affecting all New Zealanders.

Stormwater does not discriminate by ancestry.
Sewage does not target marae.
Aging pipes fail in urban and rural communities alike.

To reframe national infrastructure failure as an ethnic grievance is a political move, not an analytical one.

Kaitiakitanga Is Not a Governing Mandate

Tukaki invokes kaitiakitanga (guardianship) as if it establishes a right to co-governance. It does not.

Environmental stewardship is already embedded in law. Regional councils, environmental standards, and enforcement mechanisms exist to protect waterways for everyone. Dividing authority by ancestry weakens accountability rather than improving outcomes.

Guardianship is a responsibility, not a licence to rule.

As David Round once observed, there is no “gene for conservation”. Some Māori have deep connections to land and water. Some do not. The same is true of non-Māori. Environmental responsibility is a matter of values, law, and behaviour – not race. To suggest otherwise is to revive the condescending belief that Māori possess innate environmental wisdom unavailable to others. That assumption is not respect: it is racial stereotyping dressed up as virtue.

Public Regulators Serve the Public – Equally

The article suggests Māori involvement is necessary to ensure accountability in institutions such as the Commerce Commission and Taumata Arowai (Water Services Authority).

That implication is troubling.

These bodies exist to serve all citizens. If they are failing, they should be reformed – not supplemented with parallel authority structures based on descent. Public services cannot function if accountability is divided by ethnicity.

The Economic Argument Reveals the Core Claim

Late in the article, the real issue emerges: water underpins Māori commercial development, and historical exclusion is said to have constrained economic opportunity.

At this point, the spiritual framing collapses.

Water cannot simultaneously be a living ancestor and a commercial asset demanding preferential allocation. That contradiction exposes Tukaki’s underlying argument: this is not about water quality or stewardship, but about control.

Nor has prior arrival ever conferred sovereignty in modern democracies. As Round pointed out, if ancestry alone created extra and indefeasible rights, descendants of early European settlers might claim superior status over recent migrants – an idea rightly rejected as incompatible with equal citizenship. Arrival order does not generate political authority.

Conclusion

Strip away the rhetoric, and Tukaki’s claim reduces to this: prior arrival is said to confer political authority over water. In reality, modern democracies grant sovereignty to constitutions and elected governments, not to whoever settled first. Heritage and identity may shape culture or rights, but they do not create governing authority.

At its core, Tukaki’s argument is an ancestry-based claim to power – one New Zealand has consistently rejected. Respecting Māori culture does not require surrendering democratic governance, dividing authority by race, or rewriting constitutional fundamentals.

Water is life. But in a democracy, life-sustaining resources must be governed equally by elected authorities accountable to all citizens, or they will eventually be governed unjustly.