Post by Kiwi Frontline on Aug 22, 2017 17:27:59 GMT 12
COOL HEADS NEEDED TO RESOLVE VEXED QUESTIONS AROUND WATER
“A royalty implies ownership. That ownership will certainly be contested by iwi and the Govt has never asserted ownership in that way. I think the Labour has just bumbled into it.”
English believes the groundwork had been established to treat Maori claims as “highly localised.” With agreement about regional co-management,
For decades Labour and National had stuck to the line no-one owned water while accepting Maori had an interest. It is a much-debated point both politically and legally.
National had ruled out a pan-Maori fisheries type settlement as unworkable. It is essentially a cap and trade mechanism with allocations based on use and Maori interests, with the Govt able to alter and limit use when demand on the resource is too high.
National thinking on this is leaning toward is some sort of tradeable water right and resolving Maori interests by giving co-management rights over some water bodies and greater say for Maori in RMA processes. This would not necessarily set a price on water.
Both National and Labour’s approaches face a potential backlash from NZ First and likeminded voters who see concession to Maori interests as “race-based.”
NZ First seems to believe it is possible to charge for water, sort out allocation and not recognise any Maori interest. The political result would make the Foreshore and Seabed debate look like a polite chat over a cup of tea.......
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1708/S00092/cool-heads-needed-to-resolve-vexed-questions-around-water.htm
“A royalty implies ownership. That ownership will certainly be contested by iwi and the Govt has never asserted ownership in that way. I think the Labour has just bumbled into it.”
English believes the groundwork had been established to treat Maori claims as “highly localised.” With agreement about regional co-management,
For decades Labour and National had stuck to the line no-one owned water while accepting Maori had an interest. It is a much-debated point both politically and legally.
National had ruled out a pan-Maori fisheries type settlement as unworkable. It is essentially a cap and trade mechanism with allocations based on use and Maori interests, with the Govt able to alter and limit use when demand on the resource is too high.
National thinking on this is leaning toward is some sort of tradeable water right and resolving Maori interests by giving co-management rights over some water bodies and greater say for Maori in RMA processes. This would not necessarily set a price on water.
Both National and Labour’s approaches face a potential backlash from NZ First and likeminded voters who see concession to Maori interests as “race-based.”
NZ First seems to believe it is possible to charge for water, sort out allocation and not recognise any Maori interest. The political result would make the Foreshore and Seabed debate look like a polite chat over a cup of tea.......
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1708/S00092/cool-heads-needed-to-resolve-vexed-questions-around-water.htm