![floods](/sites/default/files/2023-02/image003%20%2817%29.jpg)
By Chris Trotter*
The National Party stands at the beginning of an unsealed track which, if followed, might just lead it to victory. The question, now, is whether the party possesses the guts to set off down it. Sometimes politicians hit upon a winning strategy by accident, unaware that they have done so. National’s answer to the Government’s controversial Three Waters project may be a case in point. Wittingly, or unwittingly, National’s policy reflects the principle of subsidiarity – i.e. the idea that the best decisions are those made by the communities required to live most closely with their consequences. Set against Labour’s preference for large, centralised (and almost always unresponsive) bureaucracies, National’s preference for the local and the accountable has much to recommend it.
Labour, meanwhile, may find that its road to October has been closed. Rather than proceed with all speed down the path of repudiation and reprioritisation promised by Chris Hipkins when he became Prime Minister, the exigencies of dealing with the Auckland Anniversary Weekend Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle appear to have provided Hipkins’ caucus opponents with a chance to regroup and push back.
This was especially true of Three Waters. The period within which the unequivocal repudiation of the project remained politically feasible was always dangerously short. Indeed, the slightest delay threatened to make its abandonment impossible. Nor was the threat exclusively internal. The longer Hipkins put off Three Waters’ demise, the greater the risk that National would produce a viable and popular alternative. Which is exactly what it has done.
Announced with uncharacteristic political savvy at the National Party’s “Blue-Greens” conference in Nelson, the Opposition’s alternative closely reflects the ideas and plans formulated by the local government opponents of Three Waters. National is promising to restore the ownership of the nation’s drinking, waste and stormwater infrastructure to its local authority owners – albeit at the cost of the latter submitting to improved and much stronger regulatory oversight.
National’s decision to restore of local authorities’ property could hardly have come at a more opportune moment, given the very recent judicial observation that the asset base of the Three Waters’ “entities” had, indeed, been “expropriated”, from their local authority owners without the payment of fair and adequate compensation. It is a measure of the reckless radicalism of the Three Waters project that a New Zealand court could endorse such a claim. In no other context is it possible to imagine a Labour Cabinet signing-off on expropriation without compensation – a policy worthy of Lenin’s Bolsheviks.
Not that National is averse to a little Bolshevism on its own account. Its “Local Water Done Well” policy paper confirms that local authorities unable to meet the costs of transitioning to the new system without incurring a ruinous level of debt, or striking an impossibly high rate, will be able to turn to the Crown for a “one off” grant. Spurning the short-termism that has plagued infrastructural development for the past four decades, National is also hinting at the availability of long-term (and, presumably, lower-interest) finance for long-term water investments. Such promises point to the strong possibility that, in the expensive upgrading of the nation’s water infrastructure, the New Zealand state will both a borrower and a lender be.
If this is, indeed, what National is planning – and by what other means could citizens escape crippling rate increases and/or water charges? – then it is reasonable to predict a decisive shift in the relationship between New Zealand’s central and local government institutions. If the drift towards ever larger and more remote central bureaucracies is to be halted, then a radically new way of funding local infrastructure and the provision of local services will have to be devised. It is simply untenable for the present practice of central government offloading more and more responsibilities onto local authorities, while simultaneously withholding the funding needed to pay for them, to continue. There is a limit to how much can be borrowed affordably from private lenders, just as there is a democratic limit to the size and frequency of local government rate-hikes.
If National has, at long last, recognised this, then it can present itself as offering something new and progressive to the electorate. Subsidiarity is, after all, entirely congruent with the conservative (but not the neoliberal) view of politics. Conservatives are deeply suspicious of strong, centralised states which have no need to fear the displeasure of their citizens. Democracy, as a means of ensuring political accountability, similarly decreases in efficacy the further away the decisions affecting citizens’ daily lives are made. When the Americans say, “all politics is local”, they’re speaking the truth.
While it is easy to understand Chris Hipkins having other things on his mind these past few weeks, it is not so easy to forgive him for letting Three Waters – and all that it has come to stand for – slip through his fingers. Three Waters was, after all, the big test of whether or not his promises of reprioritisation were genuine, or just more Labour Party spin. He didn’t even have to come up with a detailed alternative, merely a promise to repeal the legislation and begin again. Starting, perhaps, with the proposals put forward by Communities 4 Local Democracy. (Now the basis of National’s plan!) His failure to maintain his momentum on this issue has allowed Christopher Luxon and his National colleagues to steal a march on Labour and, amazingly, outflank them on the left.
Making everything worse, are the public misgivings about the way Labour is handling the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle. Intended or not, accurate or not, Hipkins’ downplaying of claims of lawlessness in the stricken communities of Tairawhiti and Hawkes Bay reminded too many people of the Covid emergency’s infallible “Podium of Truth”. Compounding Labour’s difficulties is Forestry Minister Stuart Nash’s inability to fully articulate the locals’ white-hot rage at the forestry companies. The latter’s failure to do anything about the hugely destructive volumes of “slash” that repeated storms have sent crashing into bridges, fences, orchards and people’s homes, has outraged the whole country. If ever there was a moment for righteous ministerial wrath, then, surely, this is it. Action, not yet another expert inquiry, is what the situation demands. Action, and the colourful condemnatory language of a Bob Semple or a Jack Lee. Labour men who really did “move with speed” in a crisis.
For Chris Hipkins and Labour, the state highway to October has been rendered impassable by inaction and political slash. Christopher Luxon and National, meanwhile, have discovered an unsealed road without slips and fallen trees. It’s not their usual way of reaching the Treasury Benches, but, with a bit of luck, it just might get them where they want to go.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
165 Comments
National's policy is pretty close to what i felt was the logical and most commonsense way do address the issue. that labour could not see this, is perhaps testimony to their hubris for being in power for so long.
It is a classic pitfall for any government to lose touch with the people. Others have said it, but any government represents ALL of the people when they're in power, not just the ones who voted for them. There is little forgiveness from the people when they stop listening.
Remember Arden's promise to govern for all NZdrs...& how that played out with He Puapua, 3/4/5/6 Waters, Willie & Mahutas reinventions of democracy...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/428596/election-2020-jacinda-arder…
Yes , for 6 years this Labour government has governed for their own ideologies & for the special interests of their Maori caucus ...
... regular kiwis have been blown off time & again ...
Incompetence , wrong targets , authoritarianism , blatant lying , unkindness , untargeted wasteful spending ....
... we've never seen a government this wretchedly awful in our lifetimes : anything has to be an improvement , even Luxon ...
Pretty sure you don't actually know what co-governance is. Read this, you might learn not to fear the co-governance bogeyman like National wants you to: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/co-governance-its-nothing-like-you-think
I have been following Mr Trotter’s columns for well over thirty years. Early on he was undoubtedly a champion of the left side of politics but even then he was able to give due credit to the other side, if he saw there benefit to New Zealand and society accordingly. This column today is due testament to that good characteristic. On the other hand though, earlier columns have contained at times criticism of this Labour government to a degree that is unheralded. My interpretation is that Mr Trotter is now viewing this Labour government with the same dismay and alarm that he developed for the Lange/ Douglas Labour government. That can only mean, and here I totally agree with him, that in his view the present Labour Party and/or government has abandoned its traditional principles and philosophy to pursue policies which are not mandated and neither acceptable nor palatable to the majority of the electorate.
CT respects the truth, and democracy. And for a long time Labour were the keener champions. Not anymore. Liarbour has been captured, which is why CT declared last year in an interview with Sean Plunkett that he won't be voting Labour or the Greens this coming election, because both are now un-democratic parties of identity politics aka race, not class.
And you know bloody what?? Maori did not want what they got, even under a treaty. Co-governance is owed, whether you like it or not. The tyranny of the majority should not call the shots in this, only what is right or wrong.
What are you afraid of? Maybe that Maori, were it possible, to dish out what they got? Even if that turned out to be the case, who could blame them.
Have to agree with you but co-governance will not not solve the problem.
The core problem is economic policies, and the allocation of a resource is in effect an economic policy, being allocated on a basis of wealth and political clout, not on a basis of community social good or other needs. Co-governance will not solve the problem because it creates competing political entities who fight for their share of the resource because the principles of allocation are not constrained.
I am against the idea of co-governance for a couple of reasons; 1. the selection of anyone based essentially on race is racism and 2. Maori today have disproportionately more representation in parliament than any other group of the population per head of population, and have been for a while. They have a voice in Government. If it is not working for them ask why.
Problem is I do understand what co-governance is. The end result is another political entity to scrap over the allocation of a resource. Superficially yes they look like it is being done in a balanced, shared and civil way, but it remains the continuation of the creation of a race based political entity and elite. What about democracy? Where and when do they put people, no matter who they are, first?
The core problem is that the allocation of resources is not being directed as having to be for the greater good of all communities. Small towns, papakainga, middle sized cities all need to be prioritised over business and other needs.
I'll tell you what I'm afraid of - the tyranny of the minority/dictatorship. Majority democracy isn't that great, but its still better than all the alternatives. Surely we can come up with something better than depriving me of part of my vote and giving it to someone else as compensation for what a third party did 160 years ago. Isn't that creating more wrong to fix an earlier wrong? Co-governance, as i understand it is giving 10%-17% of the population 50% of the vote, and having my vote reduced in value by about 2.5x. If my taxes are also reduced by about 2.5x, i might start thinking about it.
And your comment - "Maybe that Maori, were it possible, to dish out what they got?" is a really sad recipe for going forward ie. they (not me btw) stuck it to us, and now we're going to stick it to you. Wow.
What we've got now is the tyranny of a minority now. That minority is wealthy and political elites, where money and/or political clout are the determinants. There will be Maori in that group so it is not race based. The decisions being made, initiatives being carried through are more about preserving and strengthening wealth, privilege, and power. This tyranny has been in place for decades, but over time they have become increasingly less subtle. Further moves by them will weaken democracy, but they will endeavour to buy off the masses to make it happen.
Five of the ten board members of the Waikato River Authority are iwi appointees, selected by Māori from the five iwi that border the river.
Sounds like they're the historical owners of the resource, actually. But lets just give those "jobs" to the white-faced newcomers, eh? They're clearly the best people to do this "job" after all, with their historical ties tracing back generations to this land.
Or maybe I'm getting myself confused about what past experience and qualifications is required for people to be appointed to these "jobs". You seem to have a pretty clear idea that there's no way anyone of Maori descent would qualify for these "jobs" after all, since you seem to think appointment was purely race based.
"They're clearly the best people to do this "job" after all, with their historical ties tracing back generations to this land."
That is the point is it not - their ancestry does not add ( or substract ) anything to their qualifications for the job.
Do you think that children of bankers are automatically better qualified to be bankers ? ( make it 10 generations of bankers if you wish .. .)
Yes, when you boil everything down to purely economic terms and don't take into account culture whatsoever, you're correct that children of bankers are not automatically better qualified to be bankers compared to others.
When you add in culture, tradition, and the fact that we're talking about a natural resource here that will exist and has existed for likely millions of years regardless of what humans do with their imaginary money systems, your analogy is inaccurate.
hm .. let us try another analogy .
The laws of nature and mathematics existed for billions of years now and will be here as long as the universe exists .
You might recall we clashed repeatedly on the merits of Labor "Chinese sounding names" models as well as implication of Covid models with respect to testing failures under Labor / Adern / Hipkins management.
I am in fact a third generation mathematician. I hope you realize now how wrong you must have been all along.
You might be a mathematician but you're no logician.
Mathematicians don't have their own persistent or identifiable cultural beliefs that sets them apart from others in our society, such that we could identify them as a unique culture (or even sub-culture - like LGBT people, tattoo enthusiasts or other groups who identifiably live their lives in ways different from others).
Maori do.
Appeal to authority is also a logical fallacy so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about COVID or the Labour party's previous statistical analysis of financial transactions in Auckland (for the record, the underlying analysis was sound; whoever chose to communicate it to the public using racist language is at fault and I've never said otherwise).
Typical. You make it 'white vs Maori.' Ever thought there could be an Indian, Asian or Latino who could contribute to the board? Cultural values-you don't ask for that when someone is flying a plane or repairing an aortic dissection. Someone breaks into your house, are you concerned with the 'culture' of the police investigative team (I wasn't and appreciated their efforts and compassion).
One person, one vote.
Typical. You make it 'white vs Maori.' Ever thought there could be an Indian, Asian or Latino who could contribute to the board?
Er, I've done no such thing. Fegus is the one claiming that the "jobs" are based on race, not me.
I understand that the way co-governance is set up, that iwis get to appoint 5 members to the board. They are afforded this right based on the treaty that was signed by their ancestors.
You'd have to ask them about their criteria for appointment to these "jobs".
As for the other 5 slots, well you'd have to ask the government if any "Indian, Asian or Latino" could contribute to the board. Looking at the current board, the answer seems to be "no".
All the rest of your waffle has nothing to do with the situation at hand - co-governance with mana whenua over the natural resources that have existed for millions of years in this country.
Why the continual reference to long time frames in your arguments ? Are you trying to imply that somehow 900 years of pre-residence in NZ somehow gives the Maori more rights or knowledge to/of the natural resources here ? 900 years versus 200 years ? - not much of a difference % wise when you are talking about millions of years as you seem to like to do . 0.00009% versus 0.00002 % if you take your "millions" to be say 10 Million years .
1. The european settlers of this country signed a treaty with the existing inhabitants.
2. I am only bringing up that the natural resources have existed here for millions of years, to clearly distinguish the subject we are talking about from the others that have been mentioned - this is not about bankers and invented imaginary money, this is not about police who turn up at your house, this is not about the surgeon that does your surgery. It is about management and stewardship of natural resources of this country, and the analogies that have been brought up as some sort of argument against what I am talking about are not relevant.
... definitely not me , Mr F ... after a vast number of my contributions were rejected , I called the owner a weasily white apologistic woke embarrassment to the journalistic fraternity ...
And d'ya know what ... I think she took offense ...
... gormless handwringing rewriting-history privileged pinko twat ...
October is the end of a Labour road paved with memories of …
* increased social division and inequality
* race based legislation
* woeful education outcomes
* failed housing initiatives
* incoherent economic measures and export industry sabotage
* virtue signalling climate policies
* crime growth and gang handouts
* cynical media bribing
* soaring bank profits underpinned by government funding lending handouts.
Correct. They don’t. Unfortunately the principles of MMP together with the opportunities of the system, have been undone by the antagonistic and blind eyed partisanship that dominates New Zealand’s politics and governments. The approach and attitude is simply something like, I would sooner vote down some initiative, both beneficial and productive , rather than have the other side gain any acclamation for any achievement. MMP was meant to both moderate and refine our politics. It hasn’t. The whole scene sucks.At least under FPP an electorate could hold an mp to account at every election, now even if they do, the identity more often than not, just reinvents themselves on the list.
Yes. I'd be in favour of 60 electorates with 2 representatives each, voted in by STV. No party lists.
That, I think, should produce a quite representative and diverse outcome, and would also help to foster co-operation between parties, eg you'd end up with electorates that had National and Labour MPs representing them, and they'd have incentives to work together to represent their electorate.
Er, National's policy seems to be exactly the same as the current mess with councils unable or unwilling to put up rates to pay for infrastructure.
All they've done is created a 'central entity' that will nag councils to put their rates up. Chris Penk on Saturday said it would not result in rates rises yet somehow magically the infrastructure would get fixed with no extra money. On Sunday Luxon said rates would have to increase, despite in his speech on Saturday saying "Massive bills for ratepayers will not be allowed to continue under a National govt" yet the policy has no costings, despite National banging on for over a year about how 3 Waters was going to cost so much.
National have delivered what their slogan promised - repeal and replace, with as much detail and assurance as Trump's "repeal and replace" of the Affordable Care Act (aka, Obamacare) had - they repealed part of it and left most of it in place and didn't replace any of it, because they didn't have any better ideas.
No, National's 'policy' is a joke, and Labour's policy also sucks. Read Bernard Hickey's column for a proper take on both: https://thekaka.substack.com/p/national-chooses-to-think-just-as#details
Exactly.
Luxon has no idea.. nothing will change if his policies are introduced .. councils will ignore water assets as now and everyone knows councils will ignore his new department set up to nag them with tons of verbage, negotiations and excuses. So his idea will just lead to a worse, more expensive system.
Centralising the water assets is the only way to sort thsi with ceos with kpis to fix it.. Just without the need for cogovernance of any form. Come on national get some courage and propose it
7houseluxons idea wont make him or national any more electable. He needs to sort out what they stand for sell off their personal investment property portfoilio and stand for a better nz.
So the council gets to keep the asset but the government will keep it up to scratch. What incentive do councils have to spend money on their waters if the government will be the last resort?
to me there are only two viable options - either leave it up to the councils to own and maintain it or nationalise it.
Great article! And do not forget the Green Party, with their legislation that was passed to provide another 700,000 hectares of pine forest. Much of this is replacing cattle and sheep farms on hillsides. The overseas interests buying this land are paid for carbon credits by the NZ taxpayer. How much of these plantings blew over in the storm, and ended up in our rivers?
That channels Trump re California, and similar comments in Australia; this is PR/SPIN taking advantage of the moment, to put a boot in.
It has no relation to current events, on one level, but it does on others. Both Right and Left, and Green, are assumers of continuity of our way of life - the Greens just want to ease their consciences, so they can party-on. The right essentially have less, to no, conscience.
The problem is that we are altering the biosphere we evolved in, by adding long-buried carbon. Worse, we are overshot - largely as a result of burning that carbon to do work. The need is for massive de-growth; you can't plant your way out of this, nor can you buy your way out.
A plague on both their houses.....
The trouble is the masive degrowth required will take us back to sustanable local living, literally living off the land. No one is going to vote for this PowerDown, it is my own view that about 90% of the ant hill will die as climate change hits us and and the fossil fuels impulse ends.
The greens continue to talk up cycling paths and a compost bin, conning so many into thinking that these minimal changes will help.
The future will like more like Cuba and Kerala than it does Los Angeles and New York: https://twitter.com/leashless/status/1586759630482464769
That channels Trump re California, and similar comments in Australia; this is PR/SPIN taking advantage of the moment, to put a boot in.
Strategically placed landscape area treatments (SPLATs) are landscape fuel reduction treatments designed to reduce fire severity across an entire landscape with only a fraction of the landscape treated.
At a more local scale, monitoring plots within the treatments themselves saw greater regeneration of conifer seedlings two years following the fire than plots outside the treatments. Mean seedling densities for all conifer species were 7.8 seedlings m−2 in treated plots and only 1.4 seedlings m−2 in control plots. These results indicate that SPLATs achieved their objective of increasing forest resistance and recovery.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112718320462
Let me guess, the authors must be paid by the fire match lobby...
Practical is easy - I've lived that for years.
Economic is a red herring. Sustainable in the long term, is the yardstick.
Acceptable to a majority? They've been more than conditioned; they've been spun-to. For years. By nearly everyone.
Why use that as a yardstick? Straw-man territory.....
Slash is from harvested pines - not from carbon farming.
Caron farming will protect the soils and gives farmers another income stream
All hill county sourced rivers in the Nth Island flow brown - carrying top soils due to poor land management by farmers.
The problem is not the greens or climate change. It is decades of poor land management by land owners.
Profits are private, the losses are being socialised.
It is time the real cause was recognised - the land managers.
No, it's simply a lie made up by some to point the finger the Greens.
When a forest is harvested, it is deemed that 100% of the carbon in it is released at that point in time - you might argue that the timber goes into products like houses and so the carbon is 'locked up', but it's impossible to know where the timber will go and for how long it will be 'locked up', so for accounting purposes at point of harvest, 100% of the carbon is deemed to be released. So someone harvesting a forest must buy carbon credits equivalent to the forest they're cutting down, and that includes the slash as well as the finished timber. Whether or not the slash is burned is immaterial, the carbon credits must be accounted for - so it's not "the Greens" stopping people from burning slash for carbon accountancy reasons.
Forest harvesting requires carbon re-paid.
Carbon farming can be different - the owners may never clear or harvest and thus will have no need to repay. They being content to earn carbon income during the growth stage and then walk away - and leave us with a forest that will eventually revert to native (or whatever species thrives over time).
Lanth - a little knowledge is dangerous - read up the MPI website and Google NZ Givt and International discussion on the future of the ETS. Slash and stumps are "deemed to decay over 10 years" so if burnt the net result is the same its just a different timescale. Unsold earned credits only have to be repaid in certin circumstances and the new models largely obviate that. I agree its deifficult to determine the end use of harvested timber so like the ETS and Carbon look up tables some reasonable estimates are required. An interesting question - if logs are shipped overseas and are then Burnt for example who is accountable for the co2 released???
Sandra Lee of Alliance - pre-Green Party
That came to the fore when several tornados on the West Coast flattened a lot of natives, including Rimu that had to left to rot and not harvested. (It likely will have been dozy anyway, to fall so easily). I am not sure that slash was even considered then.
Ha Ha...doing farming well!
Ask Napier and Gisborne and every brown river. Check out the cadmium levels in the Waikato soils (getting close to produce rejection levels. Not to mention the state of the Waikato River itself.
Terrible farmers - still operating with a colonial exploitative mindset.
Absolute BS ! ... the vast majority of farmers today are well educated in their craft , and careful custodians of the resources at their disposal ... they were a long way down the track of sustainability before Ardern & her gormless goons started a legislation blitzkrieg on them ...
.. it was Helen Clark who approved the formation of Fonterra as a co-op which had to accept all milk sent to it ... that kicked off the crazy boom in dairy farming ...
If you have an issue with the parlous state of our freshwater systems , take it up with Labour ...
Oh, so when farming is fucking up the land we all depend on, it's Labour's fault. Damn that Helen, getting in there and physically forcing farmers to dump fertiliser in their rivers and forbidding them from doing riparian planting etc. What a 'mad cow' she was, directing exactly how farmers should go about their jobs.
But of course, when farming is going well it's due to skill of the farmers.
Sounds like another case of "privitise the profits, socialise the losses" to me.
Gotcha.
Yeah, good thing I didn't do that, eh?
I simply pointed out that if GBH's claims were true about what careful custodians of natural resources farmers in this country were, then the rivers in this country would still be drinkable - I'm not aware of any that have been made undrinkable by non-farming pollution but I suppose there might be some. I also didn't blame "all farmers" for anything.
You replied to a comment referring to 'vast majority' with the word 'all'. If I was a numbers man I would assume that means greater than 50%, therefore most of.
Therefore you are pointing your self righteous finger at the bulk of well meaning farmers doing their best to practice sustainable production on land within their means and budgets.
What you should have said was that a number of farmers, but not most of them, trash waterways and ruin water quality for New Zealanders.
We all know there are bad eggs out there, but most farmers I know would give you the shirt off their backs, and also forgive you for making sweeping generalizations.
You replied to a comment referring to 'vast majority'
That was referring to the "vast majority" of farmers.
with the word 'all'.
I was referring to "all rivers".
They are entirely different subjects.
What you should have said was that a number of farmers, but not most of them, trash waterways and ruin water quality for New Zealanders.
It seems unlikely that the actions of only a small number of farmers would have degraded our water ways to the extent that they have been. And if that were the case, it'd be pretty easy to round up the specific culprits and deal to them, wouldn't it? Hell, if the 'vast majority' of farmers are such good environmental stewards, why aren't they dobbing in the bad guys to the authorities?
We all know there are bad eggs out there, but most farmers I know would give you the shirt off their backs, and also forgive you for making sweeping generalizations.
Someone giving you the shirt off their back isn't an indication that they know how to, and at all times, properly care for the environment around them to the extent at which it needs to be cared for. Really I'd say that any farmer that isn't actively engaged in permaculture or similar regenerative farming practices is not doing all they could do for the environment.
Do some proper research Lanthanide! The bulk of undrinkable rivers in NZ are down stream of major urban areas, So many of the quoted statistics by vested interests (anti farming lobbies) are total BS! Or observations with no context. Despite what all the doom-sayers like to spout, NZ is right up there with the best for the quality of our rivers and streams. That's not to say farmers can't do better but the urban population just carry on flushing everything down the drain with no idea where it all ends up and the consequences!
The bulk of undrinkable rivers in NZ are down stream of major urban areas
Doesn't at all look like that from this tool:
https://www.lawa.org.nz/explore-data/river-quality/#/tb-national
but the urban population just carry on flushing everything down the drain with no idea where it all ends up and the consequences!
Yes, that's why the government has instituted 3 Waters, a policy that seems to be particularly opposed by people living in rural communities who either aren't on council-provided water systems, or likely have the most to benefit from the policy anyway.
I'm not sure if you like to play devils advocate or if you are just a bit thick! If you honestly believe 3 waters was designed to "fix" all our water "problems" then you are incredibly gullible!!
3 Waters is a false construct dreamed up to hand control of ALL things water to Maori. Pure and simple.
Christchurch is a classic example of urbanites burying their heads in the sand. Around 2010 the ChCh City Council finished a new waste water outflow which was supposed to stop the constant polluting of the estuary with ChCh's shit. How does the upgrade work? Simple, you build an undersea pipe 3km out into Pegasus Bay and pump all the waste out to sea. Nothing to see here! Has the Council ever been prosecuted for pumping untreated sewage out to sea. Not to my knowledge. Have numerous farmers had the book thrown at them for mostly minor breaches. Absolutely! Total hypocrisy!
You just proved my point! Actually I have read that article. So you found a journo that aligns with your ideals. Bully for you! Go back and read the comment after her article by Bryan Souster, Feb 15th. He nails it! Its about time you nailed your colours to the mast and informed us of exactly what you do for a living. Because despite your denials you certainly come across as a paid lobbyist!
So you found a journo that aligns with your ideals
If you think my ideals are "understanding the world based in fact", then yes, it does align with my ideals. But I doubt that's what you meant.
Its about time you nailed your colours to the mast and informed us of exactly what you do for a living
Why? Because the generally right-wing commenters on this website don't like an actual debate?
Because despite your denials you certainly come across as a paid lobbyist
I'll take that as a complement. I'm not a paid lobbyist, don't work in PR, don't work in any sort of public entity, am not a member of any political party nor have I ever been. I work in IT.
Now tell us what you do for a living?
I work in agriculture. So unlike you I do know a bit about it! Mind you, no doubt you would "debate" that as you apparently learn everything from "fact" based sources.LOL!
I can't recall you ever debating an issue. Virtually every post you have made has always backed the current government. That's fine however like most lefties you cannot deal with an opposing opinion. So spare us the "like to debate" BS!
I can't recall you ever debating an issue.
You clearly don't know what debate is, in that case.
Virtually every post you have made has always backed the current government.
Totally incorrect.
That's fine however like most lefties you cannot deal with an opposing opinion.
Not sure what you mean by "cannot deal with an opposing opinion". I deal with opposing opinions by debating them.
So spare us the "like to debate" BS!
Thank you for again showing you don't know the definition of 'debate'.
Lol “legislation blitzkrieg” - emotion over fact as usual.
And what is this legal lightning war - managing wastewater discharges? Managing fresh water access rights? Upper limits on chemical fertiliser use? Cage free chickens?
Clearly all terrible stuff that no NZ farmer should ever have to think about under a Blue govt, as is right & proper.
Which bit is BS gummy?
The cadmium levels, the state of Gisborne, Napier, etc the drinking water in Canterbury, the nitrogen run off polluting out lakes, the overstocked mud farms?
You have swallowed the 'clean green our farmers are the best in the world' propaganda.
It will but its going to take economic collapse or massive famine before most will wake up to the reality powerdown. Climate change will take care of the famine, and most likely the financial side... most asset markets are falling. They have tried printing money but they cannot print food oil or gas. These things are now going up in price, they are out of can kicking room right here and now. Maybe bird flu?
I think we've got at least another 2-3 years of can kicking to go. But things are getting tight so it'd only take a few particular disasters, or political events, to shift things dramatically - just as Russia's invasion of Ukraine changed the world radically.
Note that Putin has a Phd in energy, and his thesis was on how the USSR fell due to mismanagement of its oil resources.
Why has he invaded Ukraine? I can see it as an amazing food bowl, and can see he wanted a land corridor to Crimea, apart from that perhaps a buffer zone from Nato. But I cannot see the energy rationale for Ukraine? Maybe its why the US is there? maybe there is gas.
I think the only person who really knows is Putin, and he ain't speaking, yet.
And I'm not saying he invaded Ukraine in order to get energy - I'm saying that Putin has a very good understanding of energy and that his understanding of energy markets (Russia is one of the worlds top exporters) would play into his strategic decision making. There's been quite a lot of evidence that Putin expected Russia to be greeted as saviours when they went into Ukraine, and that the government would flee, letting Russia take over.
The point being that Europe depends on Russia's energy, so he had a good bet that Europe would ultimately buckle if he turned off the gas taps. Also consider the idea that the US actually sabotaged the Nordstream pipelines (they'd previously been vehemently against them) so as to forcibly wean Germany off of Russian gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage#Involv…
I think it’s the richest European country in the minerals that are needed for renewable energy (or materials energy!), which will be another factor.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Resources-and-power
What did Luxon actually achieve in any of his past jobs?
He's a middle manager, promoted beyond his competence, and it's obvious. Peter Principal in action.
Promoting Judith Collins back onto the front bench also makes his judgement very questionable: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/luxons-puzzling-brainfade
It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask the person who wrote this:
Say what you want about Luxon, but at least he comes from a culture where you deliver or get fired.
Seems they know something about Luxon's past delivery, so I'd like to find out what it is. I don't believe Luxon was ever fired from his job, which means he must have delivered something.
And no, I don't really want to waste my time doing research on Luxon. If you are volunteering to do this for me and report your results, then I'd be most glad you did.
Stick to your straw man & keep ignoring the question of Labours weak credentials for anything beyond political science, Socialist doctrine & spin doctoring.
I can't speak for his time at AirNZ however I myself worked in Unilever for 26 years including time when Luxon started his career. I recall him as practical and able to work well with all levels of the workforce from the factory floor to the boardroom.
Unilever is a multicultural multinational that has survived a century in a VUCA world & currently serves over 3 billion consumers daily. Failure is not an option.
"Luxon worked for Unilever from 1993 to 2011, being based in Wellington (1993–1995), Sydney (1995–2000), London (2000–2003), Chicago (2003–2008) and Toronto (2008–2011).[6] He rose to be the President and chief executive officer of its Canadian operations.[10]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Luxon
Lanth - Too early to judge and the opposition has little to no influence especially on the current Beehive Bunglers whose achievements whilst in office have largely been negative (unintended consequences) or sucessfully wasting more taxpayer $ than any previous administration.
It is interesting watching the Tories run the UK at the moment. The shops have run out of fruit and vegetables. Theresa Coffey a government minister said that people should eat turnips to get through the winter. She also said "if you can't afford food, work harder". With Luxon's "bottom feeder" remarks, I doubt that life would improve for the majority of Kiwis under a National/Act Government.
"Work harder". I would, but I'm too hungry.
I did try once. I turned up to my 9-5 job and worked really hard. Much harder than I ever had. But they just paid me the same :(
The others in the factory had a great week though as they watched me doing the work they should have been doing.
Labour lost the election in the past week. Comment based on:
1. Calling out people as liars on the crime happening in HB area. Aided by Coster.
2. They don't have a clue how to respond to the Cyclone disaster.
3. Attitude to slash issue has been poor, make worse by Nash.
4. 3 Waters has been gazumpted by Nats.
I sort of agree but, Hipkins soft on crime attitude has been Labours modus operandi for ages, the fact that the cyclone has knocked ram raids off the front page does not mean that they have solved the ram raiding issues.
Most swinbg voters in the middle (who decide elections) are aghast at people trying to leave supermarkets with trolleys without paying.
Nash pleaing to the gangs to knock it off said it all, he was not in control.
It will take ages to fix things, peoples houses will be last on the list, thats private insurance, but council may not let them rebuild in the flood planes. Personally i think the land needs to be purchased by central gouvernment then turned into flood control areas.
Some communities will never get roading or bridges back the way they where... managed retreat.
This is a very difficult sell to people, their cutures, traditions way of life.
Up to 40% of Wairoa houses damaged in floods have no insurance. There will be no money coming for repairs. Any attempts for central gouvernment to bail these people out will alienate the swing votes.
the fact that the cyclone has knocked ram raids off the front page does not mean that they have solved the ram raiding issues.
Maybe the fact that ram raids are way down does, though?
Nevertheless, ram-raids have been dropping from their high of 10 a week, according to police in early November.
This followed the arrests of several hundred young people in Auckland and Waikato in recent months, with more than 2000 charges laid in the two regions.
https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-national/fewer-ram-raids-despite-s…
That article doesn't seem to have the actual stat, but I've seen mentions that there were a total of 13 ram-raids in all of November. Hard to find actual data though.
... some facts : the richest 2 deciles in our nation spent $ 12 million on lotto tickets last year ...
The poorest 2 deciles spent $ 151 million ... 12 times as much ...
... it is not sensible to encourage addictive behaviours of this sort , particularly from those who are least able to afford it ... bloody stupid !
That's an argument for scrapping the lottery entirely, not an argument for why we shouldn't direct lotto funding toward recovery efforts from a national disaster.
And yes, I agree that we should scrap the lottery.
But since we have a lottery, and no party is seriously campaigning on scrapping it (not even the Greens AFAI can recall), directing it to this purpose is sensible.
On the rates, straight from the horse's (Luxon's) mouth, on privatisation and the inevitable control ending up in foreign hands, he's pretty much said it by omitting any mention of it.
At the very, very least I expect a similar model to power supply and look how cheap that is now.
Strange analogy but I'll run with it.
If you had previously made emphatic and specific promises to your good lady not to exterminate the Hungarian race as part of your planned breakfast on the morning of 3rd March, and then today during your breakfast outlined a lot of other parameters about the upcoming 3rd of March breakfast, such as the venue, what you would be eating etc, but didn't mention the Hungarians whatsoever at all, then yes, your good lady may have cause for concern about the Hungarians - at the very least she'd wonder why you didn't mention them again in your detailed plans for the 3rd of March breakfast after previously making such a promise about the 3rd of March breakfast.
It would be nice to think we could elect a party with a real leader. It seems whoever you back, is most likely to be a follower of some big corporation backed agenda.
Luxon has attended the last two Microsoft CEO Summits hosted by Bill Gates, as the only Kiwi invited to a forum of 130 global thought leaders.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/74533171/air-new-zeala…
It was unfortunate that the third Labour government relied so heavily on Norman Kirk. That government was innovative and is hugely under valued by history. Once Rob Muldoon had upended Jack Marshall NZ politicking descended into personality attacks bordering on persecution. Muldoon was very skilled at these and was virtually ahead of his time in using the media to advance his ambitions. After Kirk passed, no person in the Labour government could withstand Muldoon, they had neither anticipated nor set defences for his style of opposition.
Nash can't articulate the locals' rage because he's been the recipient of a lot of forestry donations to his campaign fund and has been in the industry himself in the past. It's a cleft stick of his own making. I'm wondering if Hipkins is regretting his choice of forestry minister.
I see the hands already coming out for Luxons cheap and additional money. Neil Holdom of New Plymouth is one and I should imagine there'll be plenty of other councils as well. NP is not badly run as councils go but still the vanity projects flow and have flowed. The Taranaki Regional Council caught both the NPDC CEO and the Councillors asleep at the wheel with the new stadium and they couldn't do anything about it.
The problem with Luxons proposal , not withstanding claimed regulation and it sounds good in theory is that the council will fritter the money elsewhere and won't be monitored.
Only way to sort that out is jail sentences for CEOs and councillors who spend the money elsewhere.
A difficult time for our country at the moment. Dealing with severe weather events alongside huge infrastructure demands is forcing our government into finding the money somehow. Where will these funds come from? Reducing government services or borrowing? We are in the unenviable position of suffering from climate change and not having the means of making any difference into the causes of it. That is in the hands of the largest polluters who are not the slightest bit interested in halving their carbon emissions in the next 7 years. A very frustrating and concerning situation. How can we protect and provide for our citizens and pay for the necessary changes while not impoverishing ourselves by restricting our agricultural production? A massive challenge for our current Parliament. I have my doubts they are up to the task. We are probably doomed to argue over distractions like crime and truancy while the country is washed out to sea.
The need to spend money to fix water assets is a symptom. It addresses the cause in a roundabout way.
The bigger issue is that many local governments are too small and not economically viable.
NZ is only 5m people, the size of Sydney. We have far too many local bodies and thus too much deadweight overhead.
NZ would be better off with 15 or so unitary authorities and even then these 15 could coordinate to manage water assets to one standard to achieve efficiencies of scale.
I don’t buy the local representation issue. At the moment local politicians are captured by interest groups, nimbies and those that should the loudest.
The best way to get local representation is to force local governments to take statistically robust sample polls on all issues where they are making substantive spending decisions. This is the only way to get the great unwashed stance on any issue.
3 waters Or not three waters still doesn’t address local government spending on unnecessary projects and everyone will still be whacked with excessive rate rises plus a water bill.
local government needs to be amalgamated as above and be forced to do benefit cost assessments on all its spending and prioritise it on that basis. Alternatively remove the powers of general competence and go back to just managing assets.
I think most people against the "extra" bureaucracy 3 waters is supposedly adding have no idea how much bureaucracy is hidden inside Thier local council building. For our small local council, I heard during the cyclone, the problem was only 6 people on the tools, and 20 in the office. And guess which ones were getting all the blame???
Politics aside, what is the proposed approach from an engineering and delivery perspective?
Local councils are renowned for being underfunded and therefore under-resourced. This leads to a wide variances in quality and sustainability of solutions. Difficult solutions are often avoided due to councillors being beholden to the community. Or conversely poor decision making results in inequitable burdens on a small rate payer base.
Does anyone remember the debacle of the Mangawhai Distruct Wastewater scheme ?
https://oag.parliament.nz/2013/mangawhai
It’s all very well to give communities responsibility and possible finding sources, but the support needs to be more than regulatory.
An effective model for country wide infrastructure rollout that is proven in New Zealand’s Uktra Fast Broadband initiative. That succeeded by enabling large economies of scale to be achieved with a standardised rollout and focused mission.
Admittedly it was politically easier to rob telcos of their stranglehold on bitrates (can we do mobile next please?)
The amount of time and energy being wasted on who-owns-what, and politics is frustrating.
We are in danger of letting the politics get in the way of solving a critical problem for NZ. It’s a pattern that endlessly repeats itself and is holding NZ back.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.