Table of Contents
Geoff Parker
Geoff Parker is a long-standing advocate for truth, equal rights, and equality before the law.
Freshwater is arguably New Zealand’s most vital shared resource, sustaining public health, food production, energy generation, and the environment. That is why any proposal for tribal control – whether in the South Island or nationwide – should concern every New Zealander, Māori and non-Māori alike.
This debate is often mischaracterised as being about ‘ownership’. It is not. The real issue is control: who decides how water is allocated, who may use it, under what conditions, and with what power of veto. Those decisions determine outcomes in practice, even though water itself is not subject to legal ownership.
For more than 180 years, freshwater in New Zealand has been managed as a public resource under English common law, governed through parliament and administered by public bodies accountable to the entire population. The Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 formalised this approach, establishing Crown regulatory authority over allocation, use, and conservation of water. That framework has never granted exclusive decision-making authority over water to any group, whether ancestry-based or otherwise. While Māori interests have increasingly been recognised within environmental law, ultimate authority has remained democratic and universal.
Supporters of tribal control often invoke ‘Treaty principles’. Yet neither the Treaty of Waitangi nor subsequent legislation confers unilateral governance authority over freshwater to iwi. Even the Waitangi Tribunal’s freshwater inquiry stopped short of declaring ownership or exclusive control, instead recommending increased Māori involvement in management. Tribunal reports, however influential, are advisory only, rather than binding law.
Freshwater systems do not conform to iwi boundaries. Rivers cross regions, aquifers span catchments, and rainfall patterns are national. Effective water management requires coordination, consistency and transparency across the whole system. Fragmenting decision-making among multiple tribal authorities risks regulatory inconsistency, overlapping claims, and variable arrangements that privilege some users over others.
Accountability lies at the heart of the problem. Tribal entities are not elected by, nor answerable to, all New Zealanders who depend on water. By design, they are required to act in the interests of their members rather than the wider public. That is entirely legitimate – but it makes them structurally unsuited to exercising decisive control over a resource upon which everyone relies equally.
When control shifts away from Crown and local government institutions, public oversight weakens. Parliamentary scrutiny fades. Official information obligations become unclear. Judicial review becomes more complex and less accessible. What is described as ‘partnership’ can, in practice, amount to veto power without corresponding responsibility to the wider public.
The economic consequences would be significant. Agriculture, industry, hydro-electric generation and urban development all depend on predictable, nationally consistent water rules. Introducing tribal control creates uncertainty: will access depend on negotiations with multiple iwi authorities? Will water allocations be conditional on separate agreements, fees or preferential arrangements? These questions matter not only to investors, but to councils planning infrastructure and communities planning for growth.
There is also a fundamental issue of fairness. Two New Zealanders living side by side, drawing from the same river, could find their access governed by different rules depending on ancestry rather than citizenship, need, or environmental limits. That is not equality before the law. It is differential treatment embedded in governance.
Environmental protection is frequently cited in support of tribal control, yet governance structure alone does not guarantee better outcomes. Poor freshwater management has occurred not always because of bad intent, but often due to capacity constraints, weak integration of values into policy, and unresolved disputes over responsibility and authority. The remedy lies in stronger standards, clearer limits and better enforcement applied consistently – not in transferring decisive authority to bodies that may also pursue commercial or political objectives.
It is important to be clear: Māori already have a recognised and legitimate role in freshwater management. Consultation requirements, cultural values embedded in national policy statements, and targeted co-governance arrangements ensure Māori perspectives are heard and respected. These mechanisms allow participation without abandoning democratic control or equal rights.
Precedents matter. Once control over an essential resource is allocated on the basis of ancestry, it becomes politically and legally difficult to unwind. It will not stop with freshwater. Forests, coastlines and infrastructure will inevitably follow. Once such arrangements are in place, they are near impossible to reverse. That path risks creating lasting division instead of maintaining equal democratic governance for all New Zealanders.
Freshwater is fundamental to life, prosperity and environmental health. Decisions about its use must be made openly, transparently and by institutions accountable to all New Zealanders. We can acknowledge history and respect Māori culture without hard-wiring ancestry-based control into essential resources.
The question is not whether Māori should have a voice in freshwater governance – they already do, through mechanisms such as iwi participation in regional planning, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and formal co-governance arrangements like the Waikato River Authority.
The question is whether New Zealanders are prepared to give up equal, democratic control over water itself. That would be a step too far.
This article was originally published by Breaking Views.
