The government has hit back at arguments against co-governance in the three waters reforms, saying ACT's attack is a smokescreen for its privatisation agenda.
ACT has not hidden its privatisation plans however - it proposes public-private partnerships in its three waters policy "to attract investment from financial entities such as KiwiSaver funds and ACC".
The ACT Party has been campaigning for a referendum on co-governance, with leader David Seymour saying there has been a quiet 40-year shift in the way Te Tiriti o Waitangi is interpreted, and the government was seeking to create division.
That led opponents to accuse him of race-baiting and erasure of history, with Te Paati Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer saying it was stoking abuse from extremists.
Seymour rejected this, saying he took no responsibility for such attacks and would not shy away from legitimate debate about the topic. ACT's prospective coalition partner National also wants a debate on the topic, but has rejected the idea of a referendum.
ACT local government spokesperson Simon Court took up his leader's baton in the debating chamber, questioning the justification for including co-governance measures in the three waters reforms.
He asked whether Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta stood by her response to written questions - that Māori had not expressed rights and interests in water assets over and above those as ratepayers.
With Mahuta in Fiji this week, Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson said she stood by that - but while iwi had not expressed interest in the assets specifically, that did not mean they had no rights and interests in the three waters system more broadly.
Court asked whether iwi and hapū had been asked "whether they prefer a cogovernance model or whether they would prefer to invest in three waters assets through public-private partnerships?"
Robertson derided that as a throwback to the Rogernomics of the 1980s, and accused the party of wanting to privatise water infrastructure.
"Here we are, the real agenda of the ACT party is now out here in the smokescreen that ACT is putting up around cogovernance issues to cover up for the fact that they still want to privatise the assets. Roger Douglas called, he wants his policies back."
Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver
He disputed that co-governance was the centrepiece of the reforms, saying the centrepiece was "making sure that thousands of New Zealanders dont get sick every year from drinking the water that comes out of their tap".
Court went further in a media release after the clash, saying Mahuta's written response was an admission "that there is no need for co-governance around three waters".
"Despite the minister and her officials lifting every manhole lid to look for any evidence of iwi Māori rights and interests in water supply, sewer and stormwater networks, they could not find one," he said.
"There are real problems with drinking water quality in some communities, failing wastewater networks and sewage overflows into rivers and onto beaches. None of these problems are solved by trying to force Māori co-governance on to a future three waters delivery model."
ACT's policy would also return assets to councils, allow them to enter "shared services" arrangements, share GST revenue with councils, set up government long-term planning for infrastructure upgrades, and exempt small suppliers from drinking water standards.
In a later speech about the first reading of a Treaty settlement bill, Court clarified ACT's position on the Treaty.
"The ACT Party believes that New Zealand is unique in that we have a treaty between the indigenous people of New Zealand and the Crown - Queen Victoria - which sets out the rights and privileges of all citizens in that we're all equal before the law and the ACT Party believes that is one of the truly unique and wonderful things about New Zealand, that founding document."
He said the Treaty settlement process was "vital and one of the most important things that leads New Zealand to a place of social cohesion".
"It's important also to consider whether settlements that benefit some of the parties who have rights and interests in land and waters do not conflict or override the rights of others who believe they also have rights and interests in lands and waters."