Ardern is apparently to blame for National having racist supporters

Written By: - Date published: 7:58 am, June 2nd, 2022 - 273 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, jacinda ardern, labour, national, racism, racism, same old national, treaty settlements - Tags:

You read that right.

Chris Luxon is blaming Jacinda Ardern for National having racist supporters.

At one level it is not surprising.  Everything else, including internationally generated inflation, appears to be Labour’s fault.

In a Morning Report interview yesterday he was asked about comments made on a facebook post he wrote as a tribute to Ngati Whatua’s Joe Hawke who recently died.  Luxon’s use of Te Reo attracted some horrendously racist responses.  In this video Moana Maniapoto read some of them out.

Luxon was asked about the racist comments and if he was worried or concerned about them and why he did not criticise them.

His response was that he had condemned the comments but also that it was the exercise of the right to free speech.

He was asked if he had a responsibility to be stronger in calling out racist responses.  He waffled around the answer but then a minute later when co-governance was mentioned pivoted and said that Jacinda Ardern has to take people with them about co governance.  That Jacinda Ardern must burn up some of her political capital to bring people along with her and explain clearly what it meant.

Having burned up a considerable chunk of political capital dealing with Covid in Luxon’s view she had to burn up more political capital to persuade his erstwhile racist supporters that their views are wrong.

These are people who no doubt call our leader “Taxcinda” and post racist memes about Nanaia Mahuta on their facebook pages.  People like Colleen who refused to accept that Te Reo existed before the English arrived in Aotearoa.  Or Arthur who said he was “sick of Maori stuff”.  Luxon expecting Ardern to persuade them through having a reasoned discussion is bizarre.

It also follows an emerging pattern.  Attack Jacinda over everything.  Racist National supporters?  Blame Jacinda.

And rather than set out a vision claim that the proposal is unclear.  Have a bob each way by claiming some generalised support for the general principle but at the same time oppose it because of a lack of clarity.

We do need to have a reasoned discussion about Co Governance and the proposed consultation later in the year will at least kick the discussion off.  And clearly Ardern should let the consultation process be completed before expressing a view.  But even now the chances of it being a reasoned respectful process are doomed.  Luxon blaming Ardern for comments from his racist supporters shows how National will approach the consultation.

273 comments on “Ardern is apparently to blame for National having racist supporters ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    2 June 2022 at 8:14 am

    "…It also follows an emerging pattern. Attack Jacinda over everything. Racist National supporters? Blame Jacinda…."

    Ardern is head and shoulders above any other politician in this country, it makes sense to target her as the difference between winning and not winning next year.

    New Zealand fascism was emboldened, energised and most importantly is still receiving a lot of dark money as a result of the covid lockdowns and idiotically extensive MSM media coverage which saw rating (or were simply fellow travellers in the case of much of NZME) in megaphoning fascism.

    Luxon's sotto voce appeal to these groups to do his dirty work for him is entirely consistent (dirty politics was an early example) with the response of modern right wing politicians to the various crises of late capitalism. National's right wing bloc is no longer conservative in nature or serious about governance but rather interested purely in power for it's own sake, fighting endless culture wars to deflect from the issues for which it has no answers and seeks to entrench the existing economic order via a radical and revanchist return the neoliberal austerity.

  2. Tony Veitch (not etc.) 2
    2 June 2022 at 8:33 am

    Ardern is head and shoulders above any other politician in this country,

    I think you are being a little harsh on some excellent MPs in Labour, Sanctuary. MPs like Grant Robertson (I love watching the way he toys with Luxon during QT) and Andrew Little, Michael Wood, Megan Woods, Poto Williams and a host of others.

    If, on the other hand, you were only referring to the right whingers, well, I entirely agree with you.

    Sorry, meant to be a reply to Sanctuary above.

  3. Muttonbird 3
    2 June 2022 at 8:45 am

    Ardern sowing division?

    Luxon’s handler, the clumsy, evil idiot, John Keys, is an expert in sowing division, and not for any good reason, just for the laughs:

    But rarely have just two words uttered in one of Wellington’s wood-panelled rooms where MPs gather caused as much upheaval as those spoken by Prime Minister Sir John Key on December 8, 2015.

    Seven years later, those two words still rile people, and cause others to squirm.

    Key was chairing the intelligence and security committee, a group of MPs whose job it is to hold the intelligence agencies to account.

    He was questioning the head of the Security Intelligence Service, Rebecca Kitteridge, about people in New Zealand being influenced by the terror groups Islamic State or ISIS which at the time were thriving in Syria and Iraq.

    Kitteridge replies that one recent phenomenon was “the issue of New Zealand women … travelling to Iraq and Syria”.

    Key interjects, and uses those two words: “Jihadi brides.”

    Immediately after he says it, there’s a micropause from Kitteridge. She’s sitting opposite Key at the far end of a set of tables arranged in a rectangle. Her eyes look away from him and up to right before she carries on.

    “Presumably,” she says. “I mean it’s difficult to see what they do when they go …”

    Her answer continues, and she waters down the assumption that the reason Kiwi women might be going is to marry terrorist fighters.

    But Key has set the tone, and speaks to the media about it after the hearing. “Jihadi brides” is the phrase that catches on, catches the attention of the media coverage, and lights a fire that still smoulders to this day.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300599343/petrol-on-the-fire-the-two-words-from-a-prime-minister-that-set-off-a-fierce-reaction–chapter-3-spies-and-brides

    • Chris T 3.1
      3 June 2022 at 8:40 am

      The problem here is that people tend to give up reading further after you immaturely and purposefully spell Key's name wrong.

      Personally find this extremely tedious.

      I also find idiots saying "Jacinta" fricken tedious.

      It is something people about 12 do.

  4. Incognito 4
    2 June 2022 at 9:20 am

    National: We Gaslight You To A Brighter Future

  5. Ad 5
    2 June 2022 at 9:21 am

    I'm not sure you've identified the scale of rage out there Mickey in specific quarters.

    It's pretty dark.

    Ardern is very lucky Brash isn't still in politics. Labour would be toast compared to mild-mannered Luxon.

    Going against water is going against one of 2 primary sources of power in NZ.

    Ardern needs every single Minister working the media on water, or the election is lost and so is NZ water.

    Ardern is waiting too long and needs to support her Minister on water as she did Woods on Housing with multiple Associates.

    It may now be too late, but at least fight.

    • newsense 5.1
      2 June 2022 at 10:40 pm

      Maybe.

      If there’s genuine rage, then either openly racist ACT shouldn’t be losing any support or there is a lot of dog whistling from National and this speech that’s emerged out of the blue is an attempt to Te Reo wash what’s been going on or is about to go on.

      Look for one law for all, complaints about the appearance or seriousness of our foreign minister, complaint about change or speed of change or about quotas etc.

      As for co-governance- we’ve had total governance from a lot of ex-pollies some of whom tried it in the private sector and were found badly wanting. Does anyone really know who’s been on the DHB’s, the various power boards etc etc? Just the thought of there being Maori involved instead of Lord and Lady Lammington Pork-Roll means the froth is justified?

      We had a bunch of anti-fluoride people get themselves voted into all kinds of places for flips sake. Not much eyelid batting then.

      Either we should learn about all the governance going on in our name or none.

  6. Alan 6
    2 June 2022 at 9:28 am

    Labour has scored a massive own goal in not providing full and open information about co-governance from the outset.

    • gypsy 6.1
      2 June 2022 at 10:53 am

      Yep. And that includes defining what co-governance actually means.

      • AB 6.1.1
        2 June 2022 at 11:46 am

        That's a fair point.

        Problem is that governance is a tricky thing to explain and implement. People are confusing 'governance' with 'government' – they imagine it as a form of direct authority. Properly speaking – governance should be about how things are done, not about what is done. Such as – what factors need to be considered in decision-making, who are the stakeholders that should be consulted, what good processes look like, how risks should be identified and assessed, how conflicts should be handled, etc.

        Co-governance would then become the inclusion of Maori perspectives and interests in defining the how. The problem arises when people fear that defining the how will influence the what – which it will. Then it runs smack into the assimilationist racism that is so characteristic of NZ. Don Brash exemplifies it – a polite old codger who wouldn't directly discriminate against a Maori person, but essentially sees their culture and the associated worldview as worthless stone-age relics that should be relegated to symbolic or ceremonial acts. What animates Brash on such matters is the Roman law definition of property rights – which he sees as 'western civilisation', or something. This strain of thought runs unconsciously deep in the kiwi mind – and there will be a messy conflict until it dies out. I don't think any Government will be capable of successfully navigating the problem until then.

        • gypsy 6.1.1.1
          2 June 2022 at 11:57 am

          "Co-governance would then become the inclusion of Maori perspectives and interests in defining the how. "

          That can be achieved without co-governance.

          • KJT 6.1.1.1.1
            3 June 2022 at 8:49 am

            How?

            • gypsy 6.1.1.1.1.1
              3 June 2022 at 11:35 am

              Good question.

              1. Maori participate currently as part of a representative democracy, alongside their non-Maori cousins.

              2. Maori have been (rightly) given a unique voice at the table across the spectrum of local and central government decision making.

              3. Maori Wards provide mana whenua with direct representation.

              4. Initiatives such as Nga huanga Maori.

              • KJT …
                4 June 2022 at 11:16 am

                Your 2 and 3 are similar to what has been proposed for 3 waters.

                At the table in descission making. Not ownership!

                Those who are suggesting Iwi will take control are scare mongering.

                • gypsy …
                  4 June 2022 at 11:30 am

                  So you agree "the inclusion of Maori perspectives and interests in defining the how" can be achieved without co-governance. Well done.

    • Robert Guyton 6.2
      2 June 2022 at 11:04 am

      They won't have known. Partners are having to be nimble, consult with their own and react to developing situations – expecting the Government partner to be able to present a fait accompli is completely unreasonable. These are fluid, exciting times. Scares the crap out of those who are made anxious by change.

      • pat 6.2.1
        2 June 2022 at 11:10 am

        It is wise to be scared when the inmates run the asylum

        • Drowsy M. Kram 6.2.1.1
          2 June 2022 at 11:18 am

          If you can keep your head when all about you
          Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
          If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
          But make allowance for their doubting too:
          If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
          Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, . . .

          It's very probable that I don’t fully understand the situation.

      • Alan 6.2.2
        2 June 2022 at 11:43 am

        scares the crap out of people that believe in equal suffrage.

        • Incognito 6.2.2.1
          2 June 2022 at 9:29 pm

          Massive irony!!

        • KJT 6.2.2.2
          3 June 2022 at 8:58 am

          "Scares the crap out of people" who think the rich and privaledged should be able to buy any power they want.

          In the particular context of three waters, it "scares the crap out of people" who want to get their greedy paws on future privatisation.

          Or do the ones opposing three waters here, think that ACT and National are opposing it,because they want to keep it in public ownership and control, or believe that the "Great unwashed" should have a say in things that affect their lives.

          Dream on.

          • MickeyBoyle 6.2.2.2.1
            4 June 2022 at 1:25 am

            Act and National oppose it because they know the overwhelming majority of kiwis and councils do too.

            Three waters and especially co-governance is an election loser. It astounds me that many here are still so blinded to that reality.

            Luxon has already said he will scrap it when he is PM. So if Labour is truly going to die on that hill, could they perhaps choose a better issue such as implementing a comprehensive CGT, wealth or land tax?

            And whilst they are at it, reverse the 90s benefit cuts and give our most vulnerable better lives.

            They honestly don't have a brain between them. What a disappointment and wasted opportunity.

            Reap what you sow Jacinda.

            • KJT 6.2.2.2.1.1
              4 June 2022 at 10:57 am

              The majority oppose it because National, and the council's got in too quickly, with a lot of self interested bullshit, which was basically lies and propaganda.

              However I agree, why die in a ditch for this when we could have a CGT, wealth taxes, welfare levels enough to "be part of the community", and reverse the tax swaps which lowered taxes for the well off, and raised them, especially with GST, on the poor.

              Mind you, National would probably reverse these also.

              A bit strange.

              It is easy to say Labours messaging is crap. But to get messages out there media have to publish them. Most of the media is more interested in blocking any progress, and getting National re-elected.

              Any thing progessive, Labour Greens try and do is met with a storm of well funded protest orchestrated by the usual self interested, or ignorant suspects. Look at the “tough on crime crap from the RW on here.

        • Anker 6.2.2.3
          3 June 2022 at 11:05 am

          I don't think Tamati Coffey's Rotorua Admin Bill helped.. I think it is likely that this and the haste with which the select committee process, was conducted (two weeks over the Easter period) might have made people less confident about Co governance. Thankfully our Auditor General, David Parker, halted it.

          Jacinda Ardern said quite early in her time as PM that if you are going to be transformational, you must take people with you. I think it is important that people have a good explanation of what the changes will mean and why we need to make them

          Big chances eg MMP took years to canvas and then we had a referendum about it.

          We even got a referendum about a new flag.

          We got excellent comms on Covid 19.

          Why not freely canvas what would be involved in co-governence. Put it to the vote next election? If you have a big policy and you really believe in it, take a stand with it.

          • Patricia Bremner 6.2.2.3.1
            3 June 2022 at 12:56 pm

            The Bill was prepared by the Council, he just presented it.

            • Anker 6.2.2.3.1.1
              3 June 2022 at 2:39 pm

              I think you will find Patricia that Tamatis role in presenting the bill was far from neutral. He supported it. He posted his support on his fB page and stated in parliament about the bill he was "looking to tweek democracy"

              The Bill passed its first reading with Labour Greens and Te Party Maori voting for it. My understanding is given that the bill proposed changes to the electoral system, it should have been heard My understanding is the nature of the changes meant that the Bill should have been heard by a different sub committee.

              To quote the AG, :"the bil would be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act"

              I think this sort of behaviour from Labour is leading to concern and suspion about what they plan to do with Co governance and what it means.

              The Bill was also heard in select committee under the Maori Affairs committee which Tamati chairs.

              • Patricia Bremner …
                3 June 2022 at 4:31 pm

                Sorry Anker what I read in The local Daily Post did not disclose that, Thanks.

              • Alan M …
                6 June 2022 at 7:14 am

                Just curious did he actually spell it tweek, or tweak.

                One is a high meth head's behaviour, the other is a small adjustment?

          • Glenn 6.2.2.3.2
            4 June 2022 at 2:01 pm

            I agree with you, labour are not interested in democracy.

    • James Simpson 6.3
      2 June 2022 at 4:37 pm

      Agreed

      Support of co-governance seems to depend on what side your cheer for rather than any real understanding of the concept. Lefties are for, righties are against, but neither side can really articulate why, rather it appears they are going with the crowd.

      • Descendant Of Smith 6.3.1
        2 June 2022 at 4:58 pm

        Yeah cause we are all fucking stupid morons right?

        It isn't like there are existing examples:

        https://tewaihora.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2019-June-Te-Waihora-Co-Governance-Agreement-SIGNED-and-dated-compressed.pdf

        or Auditor-General Reports

        https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/part1.htm

        or media commentary

        https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/05/experts-explain-what-co-governance-is-and-why-new-zealanders-shouldn-t-be-afraid-of-it.html

        Having grown up and worked with many Maori communities over the years I see no reason to be fearful as long as the cultural concepts are maintained and nourished. The last thing we want to do is end up with Maori operating solely like exploitative capitalists. It is why alongside co-governance the language and culture must also be nourished. The value proposition of co-governance relies on that symbiosis.

        • mickysavage 6.3.1.1
          2 June 2022 at 5:46 pm

          Amen to that.

        • pat 6.3.1.2
          2 June 2022 at 7:35 pm

          The problem with co governance is the elitist anti democratic nature…it serves the interests of a small elite at the expense of the wider community, as is always the case .

          Dress it up in any manner you wish, it dosnt serve the interests of the wider community…but a few will do very nicely , thankyou.

          • Descendant Of Smith 6.3.1.2.1
            2 June 2022 at 9:07 pm

            So you are proffering that it is just like the National Party then. That's an interesting proposition. No wonder they don't like it.

            • pat 6.3.1.2.1.1
              2 June 2022 at 9:27 pm

              The National Party?….not exclusively, it is a political sop to placate a threat dressed up as a necessity benefit to wider society.

          • swordfish 6.3.1.2.2
            3 June 2022 at 5:51 pm

            .

            Pat (7:35pm)

            Bullseye

            • Anker 6.3.1.2.2.1
              3 June 2022 at 6:24 pm

              Good to see you back Swordfish.

              I hope you are doing o.k.

              Sending good thoughts

              • swordfish …
                3 June 2022 at 11:43 pm

                Cheers, Anker … really appreciate your on-going moral support.

                Had an extremely good response to the chemo I finished in Feb (officially a "near-complete response")… so very grateful for that … but odds heavily in favour of the Big C advancing again at some point in the next couple of years … (& about a 90% chance it'll be back within 4 years) … at which point I go on to the last ditch bald-as-a-badger type of chemo (up to now I've only had the non-baldie variety, thankfully). Terminal's terminal … can't change that … but I'll make the most of what I have left.

                Still deeply worried about my parents' situation … that's where my greatest stress lies.

                • Anker …
                  4 June 2022 at 10:25 am

                  Hi Swordfish, I am so pleased you have had such a good response to your treatment. I realize it must be very hard living with the situation where your cancer will return. I know this from a very dear relative of mine who is in a very similar position. I hope you have some good support and love around you.

                  I can't believe your parents are still suffering with the anti social neighbour (well I can believe it, but feel very, very angry about it). This is the last thing you would need right now and of course the last thing they need. One of my worst nightmares is living next to neighbours who are anti social.

                  This plight of people who are vulnerable or in social housing and are subjected to anti social neighbours is another reason I am unlikely to vote Labour this year. And another reason why I couldn't fully sympathize with the cries of outrage about the Parliament protesters on the lawn. At least the politicians had good housing to go home to where they weren't under threat from neighbours.

                  I was acused of bene bashing here quite recently because. I commented about the anti social neighbours who are not evicted by the govt. Ironically of course it is the vulnerable who are suffering the most (and that includes beneficiaries) from this ideologically driven policy.

          • newsense 6.3.1.2.3
            5 June 2022 at 12:46 am

            I mean, does it though Pat? We’ve had a democratically elected local body dismissed because there weren’t doing what a minority wanted and I didn’t see you getting your mass produced foreign panties in a knot then about democracy…

            Maybe it’s not really about democratic principles? That’s just a cover for maintaining the status quo, which certainly wasn’t achieved primarily through following the principles of democracy, if anyone knows what they are.

            • pat 6.3.1.2.3.1
              5 June 2022 at 10:25 am

              Im surprised you know anything of the condition of my panties, particularly over a decade ago….I also am surprised you would use an example of an anti democratic act to support an interest group as the basis of an argument to repeat the action…..if theres one thing politicians of all stripes know it's sinecures…..something I consider one short step away from corruption.

              https://www.newsroom.co.nz/inside-louisa-walls-diplomatic-sinecure

              https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ambassador-pacific-economic-development-appointed

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/sir-john-key-joins-anz-bank-as-chairman/JMTKKDXEO7NXUAOHZF3NPCDNN4/

              Then we have the likes of Ad, KJT etc perpetuating the fallacy that 3Waters is a solution to 'dirty dairy' (as did the original advertising campaign) when there is no…repeat no mechanism for the proposed entities to impact land use, unlike local democratically accountable councils. Their purpose is to manage the infrastructure and outputs, supposedly in a more effective and efficient manner…..which brings us to the financials.

              3 Waters is touted as needed because of the anticipated costs of improving/maintaining the system which is somehow (undefined) going to reduce 5 fold due to the miracle of co governance when the environment, labour pool, and technologies/solutions available remain the same

              You may wish to celebrate being sold a bill of goods but don't expect everyone will join you in your naivety.

              • KJT …
                5 June 2022 at 10:38 am

                I didn't mention Dairy in regard to three waters.

                I did mention National's "strong commitment to democratic control with ECAN" sarc, as an example of their contempt for democracy.

                So. Not sure what fallacy you think I am repeating?

                Council's however are currently responsible for treating discharges into rivers and the sea. Very often inadequately. Gisborne community opposes council's 20-year sewage discharge application | RNZ News That the council are continuing to pollute the river even though, almost certainly, a local majority oppose them shows how undemocratic council’s of vested interests, can be.

                Something three waters is intended to improve.

                Dirty dairy practices and many council’s reluctance to deal with it is another story.
                However if city wastewater is dealt with effectively, one of dirty dairyings answers to those concerned. “Cities dirty the rivers too” become even less credible.

        • Patricia Bremner 6.3.1.3
          2 June 2022 at 9:12 pm

          Thanks for that.yes Dos.

        • Incognito 6.3.1.4
          2 June 2022 at 9:30 pm

          This is a great comment heart

        • James Simpson 6.3.1.5
          3 June 2022 at 9:01 am

          Well you are "fucking stupid moron" if you think it is well understood.

          Well done you for having done the research. You aren't the problem though. The public is the problem as they are clearly struggling to get their heads around what it means.

          • Descendant Of Smith 6.3.1.5.1
            3 June 2022 at 12:45 pm

            To be honest I'm finding mainly older Europeans are the people who don't understand this and mainly cause they don't want to. I hesitate to say rightwing cause it clearly is mixed.

            Maori communities locally understand it very well from old kuia still on the marae to young urban Maori with good jobs to sole parents who have an interest in their whenua.

            Many of my children's friends understand what is going on as they have good environmental consciousness.

            I guess it's a question of whether you see those people as public. They certainly aren't the people being highlighted or having a voice in the media.

            We should also remember too that we elect people to represent us as a exercise of division of labour. No-one can be expert on everything. I'd rather trust the opinions of the engineers who have said this is necessary than those who are opposed because of fear.

            • Belladonna 6.3.1.5.1.1
              4 June 2022 at 6:17 pm

              I suggest that you try listening to the Asian and or Indian communities. They are (for good reason) very much afraid of weakened democracy, and entrenched elites (have a good, hard look at social mobility and wealth in China and India, if you don't get why).

    • mickysavage 6.4
      2 June 2022 at 5:45 pm

      Why? The consultation material is being developed. This is not a discussion that you rush.

      • Alan 6.4.1
        2 June 2022 at 6:13 pm

        Willy Jackson – "democracy is changing, the tyranny of the majority is over" etc. etc.

        It seems that the discussion is well underway already MS, you can see how such comments have attracted attention.

        • gypsy 6.4.1.1
          2 June 2022 at 6:38 pm

          This has not been a good faith process from the outset. Either the government has botched this, or they have been deliberately tricky. It looks more than a little like the 3Waters process, which suggests a pattern.

          • KJT 6.4.1.1.1
            3 June 2022 at 9:13 am

            Bollocks.

            Communication got drowned in a storm of bad faith lying bullshit from National, ACT and the media.

            Lies like "Stealing our water".

            Now, selling rail and Marsden Point refinery to their mates, was stealing.

            Transferring public control from councils to Central Govermment is not, by definition,, "stealing" when the beneficial owners remain the same. But it makes for a good sound bite, to wind up the credulous. Like you.

            National and ACT oppose it because it gives more power, not less to most of us. Removing power from a largely self serving self perpetuating old boy network that is most councils, to more of us.

            The right wing blethering about democracy, while they opposed any attempt to remove the effect of big donations in politics, and sold off valuable assetts in the face of majority opposition, is mealy mouthed hypocrisy.

          • newsense 6.4.1.1.2
            3 June 2022 at 12:29 pm

            What are you so scared about Gypsy?

            Surely a smart one like you has got a couple of investment properties?

            The Pakeha Land Court isn’t coming don’t worry! You can keep your money rolling in.

            • gypsy 6.4.1.1.2.1
              3 June 2022 at 12:54 pm

              I'm concerned about Willy Jackson leading this project when he seems to have a rather perverse view of democracy. I'm concerned about a government that seems to be engineering constitutional changes by stealth. I'm concerned about how this 'stealth' is being extended to related projects such as 3Waters. I'm concerned at how these proposals seem to be for the benefit of tribal elites, rather than those fighting to beat a system that marginalises them.

              • Anker …
                3 June 2022 at 7:33 pm

                Agree with what you are saying Gypsy. The Rotorua Admin bill I mentioned earlier in this thread is a very good example of what I consider to be a govt operating via stealth.

                Newsense your comment serves to illustrate what happens when people raise concerns about co-governance. I agree that gypsy is smart and I think she is reasonable to question what is going on.

                Co governance, by its very name doesn't sound like a tweak to democracy (to quote Tamati C about the Rotorua Bill). If that piece of legislation is any thing to go by, it would involve diluting my vote. I am not prepared to agree to that, without some very, very sound reasons. So Labour spell it all out. What are you proposing? what would it involve? Lets talk about what it would mean practically?

                You think you've got a good policy, then tell us about it. Like I said before we got to debate and vote on MMP. We even got to vote on the B….flag.
                By the way Key might have signed up to the rights of indigenous people, but Helen Clark and Horomia Parekura didn’t.

                Labour will cop back lash over this and three waters.

                • newsense …
                  5 June 2022 at 1:06 am

                  Nah, I guess it’s a combination of Gypsy and I re-enacting the Tame/Luxon interview vis a vis wasteful spending in the other thread. That’s a big enormous crisis!

                  Also the recent woke policing etc is a big crisis! Tough on crime!

                  Except : Youth crime is down. Because of good honest work, not cynical sloganeering like the United States war in drugs. This is the best recidivist treatment- stop it before it starts.
                  RNZ- youth crime down by 60% over a decade

                  Cost of living and inflation is apparently a big problem which requires tax cuts for the rich to solve. Now with solidly debunked trickle down.
                  And I’m hearing a lot of how three waters is a huge problem. And some abuse of the word democracy. The democracy project told me water was being sold off to Maori. Which doesn’t seem to be true. As I said- not the Pakeha Land Court with legal, quasi-legal and some simple chicanery to take Pakeha land.

                  So- what is there to be afraid of? That’s what I want to know. It doesn’t seem to me to be that scary. What rights are there now that Gypsy is so afraid to lose?

                  There has been an enormous swindle on democracy, turning us from a property owning society of reasonable equality to a property owning oligarchy with large barriers to entry. But the f- if I see you out in the streets about that slow moving clusterfuck.

                  So genuine question- what are you afraid of? A bit of Maori input in the governance of rivers, lakes, bores, damns and sewers on a nation planning and cost sharing basis doesn’t seem like much in the context of 25 years work to scrape together a deposit while rents rise in double digits. Or while our emergency housing list doesn’t become less. But hey that’s just me…and I don’t live in the countryside or own property.

                  • Anker …
                    5 June 2022 at 1:56 pm

                    Thanks for your geniune question Newsense. I appreciate it, that is if its directed at me.

                    What I am afraid of is the state of our health system and the inadequate attention to prioritizing full staff and good pay rates for all medical and allied staff. That is something I am really afraid of. I commented recently about a trip to ED and my experience there. Wasteful spending does come into this, because the Govt is making substantial changes to the bureacracy, while Rome burns. This is costing money that should be spent on Health Professional and medications. The re-structure to health will make little difference to the (real) health systerm. So yes I am very afraid about mis guided efforts to "fix" the health systerm. I was against establishing the Cancer Agency as well. Adequate staffing of our health systerm i.e with medical professionals and the most up to date pharmaceuticals will make the difference. Also public health campaigns about smoking, alcohol, read meat, being over weight as all these things contribute to cancer risk. The Govt might also consider some regulations around this, eg. alcohol (they won't). Most people don't know that there is no safe limit of alcohol with some cancers.

                    So I am verry afraid of having no health care or no GP, but of course that problem will likely effect other disadvantaged groups more than me. That bothers me.

                    -Re Co-governance per sa. Well your question was very helpful and I dived into He Puapua again. Despite Jacinda saying it is not policy, my reading of it is it is a forgone conclusions. So that makes me suspicious. I am also suspicious that it wasn't released for discussion before the last election, neither did Labour campaign on it. I am prepared to stand corrected on this as it may have flown below my radar. The Rotorua Bill , which I have previously mentioned, raised alarm bells for me, but it appears I am not alone in that as the Attorney General actions support my alarm bells were justified.

                    In wading my way through He Puapua I found this "realizing ranatiratanga Maori will require contituitional transformation". So if we are going to have constitutional transformation shouldn't there be a better process of discussion. The other thing about reading He Puapua is it reads like a forgone conclusion.

                    So this gives me cause for concern.

      • Populuxe1 6.4.2
        3 June 2022 at 9:12 am

        Um, aren't the development of the consultation material and discussion usually supposed to take place before the policy is decided and pushed through?

  7. Patricia Bremner 7
    2 June 2022 at 10:01 am

    National is seeding division by behaving as though co-governance is new and dangerous.

    It is for many of them. They prefer lip service and people staying in their social sector.

    Oh they will do token stuff, like fly your flag, or learn some of your language. Real change? not so much.

    Real change and sharing decision making is "Ruining democracy" don't you know.

    How dare a Maori woman with a moko push a scheme to control water quality and water infrastructure?

    For years that issue has been hidden under the grass, in poorly constructed sewerage schemes, both for human and intensively farmed animals. The cost is high for all of us.

    National is threatened and angry at how our PM can open doors get access and sell ideas.

    So denigrating and blaming her and Labour is an effort to dim her light at home.

    The fact she is giving New Zealand exposure you can not buy is a threat to their beliefs. They can only nip chip blame and try to remove her shine.

    We have to get on board. Do we want water quality? Do we want better sewerage? Do we want to talk and act together with our Treaty Partners? Or do we want more years like those under Key?

    A National past MP Finlayson, feels we should embrace co-governance.

    Doing real change is challenging and usually done by Labour and a few enlightened National Mps.

    • Ad 7.1
      2 June 2022 at 10:20 am

      That is just demonstrably wrong.

      National have been exceedingly mild, and you only have to go back to Don Brash's near-win to see it.

      National also have a strong track record on building new public institutions and achieving powerful change. Including from last term.

      If Labour and the Greens can get National on board for legislation for gun control, housing density, and carbon management, they should have been able to do it for water.

      • Robert Guyton 7.1.1
        2 June 2022 at 11:05 am

        Should have given it to James Shaw to do – he's the master! 🙂

      • Patricia Bremner 7.1.2
        2 June 2022 at 11:12 am

        Luxon was not in charge then was he? He has a "no compromise" stance, and a an agenda of 'we could do it better and for less cost" Do you buy that? He has pushed the anger barrow and been given a smooth ride by many journalists.

        Tell me Ad have you forgotten Mossack Fonseca ? National and Key were doing some things right, but also creating schemes to hide wealth. Watch my left hand while the right hand moves the chips.

        Demonstrate how Luxon and National plan to improve things….

        Finlayson is genuine, he worked hard to get Treaty settlements, and admitted the envelope of money was not overly generous.

        • Ad 7.1.2.1
          2 June 2022 at 11:14 am

          Mossack Fonseca was bad until you see how much the 5% top of New Zealand has done under Labour this term. Creamed it.

          Agreed National don't have a plan, but they aren't in government so they don't need one.

          • Patricia Bremner 7.1.2.1.1
            2 June 2022 at 11:30 am

            Yes agreed the right and rich have always taken advantage of a crisis.

            Christchurch showed up so many of those problems and laid bare their inadequate planning and infrastructure. Tell me Ad when Brownlee did away with democracy in the ensuing fight for control, and got water rights. for irrigation, has he ever admitted to helping cause the nitrate issue?

            • Ad 7.1.2.1.1.1
              2 June 2022 at 12:06 pm

              Not just Brownlee. National particularly Nathan Guy set up and funded an entire water irrigation company, which led to the acceleration of dairy intensification right across the South Island. Only the Nelson dam was for anything other than dairy.

              Though if you wanted the origin of this dairy acceleration, Labour signed up to GATT which opened the dairy floodgate, and Labour actually wrote the legislation to bring Fonterra into existence and require that they take all milk produced, without limit.

              Also, were it not for National's dairy acceleration Robertson would have very little tax to spend on us all over the last 5 years. Fonterra’s revenue is over twice that of 18 state owned enterprises and 19 Crown owned enterprises put together.

              Fonterra has more than twice the revenue of New Zealand’s only other local business of international scale, Fletcher Building. It is the largest polluter and industrial water user in New Zealand by a country mile. Fonterra’s growth of business dwarfs all other metrics. The threat and promise Fonterra posed to New Zealand was framed in 2015 by KPMG’s Executive Chairman thus: “Putting it bluntly, our economy is in good shape because of dairy, and in particular Fonterra, and New Zealand needs this to continue.”

              We would be a drastically poor country without dairy.

              And that's the power Mahuta is really up against.

              • Descendant Of Smith …
                2 June 2022 at 12:35 pm

                Taking advantage of a made up crisis is also a useful ploy.

                https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1403/S00114/special-investigation-adams-family-values.htm

                The Central Plains Water scheme would not have been viable if the National government had not passed the ECan bill in 2010. The value of land with access to water for irrigation is greater than land which does not. Adams owns a large amount of land which is within the CPW water scheme, and also owns shares in the scheme itself. It is difficult not to conclude that the actions of this government, including Adams and Carter, have benefitted their farming portfolios.

              • Patricia Bremner …
                2 June 2022 at 12:55 pm

                Thanks Ad, even more reason to find a way to work together to solve the nitrates and overstocking problems, to build some strength in diversity of ideas. We are not going to be able to do more of the same ad infinitum.

                Even huge Shipping and shipbuilding in Britain came to a halt one day, as flight took over. We gained many of their engineers.

                When protein is produced with less water we may have a change begin here. It may be forced on us by climate change, but change will come some way. It is a journey. Hemp? Medical canibis.? Added value products.? Fonterra would remain, but care of water would get greater importance.

                No business model remains unchanged forever, but water remains one of life's true needs. Fonterra needs to diversify more or we will have all our protein/money in one bucket.

    • gypsy 7.2
      2 June 2022 at 11:06 am

      I respect much of what you write Patricia, but I believe you have this wrong. My objection to 3Waters has nothing to do with a maori woman with a Moko. It has to do with a poorly conceived idea that cuts across the fact that the majority of water entities in NZ actually do a good job with inadequate funding. It has to do with my objection to establishing a huge bureaucracy that will add cost and little of value. And it has to do with the nepotism that inevitably follows such a plan, amongst people of all cultures.

      • Patricia Bremner 7.2.1
        2 June 2022 at 11:23 am

        Thank you Gypsy as you say, Councils may have "Done a good job" in the past, but they have by and large admitted the cost of reform is crippling and needs Government support.

        We do not want our water sold off as in California.

        We must lower pollution, especially nitrates.

        • gypsy 7.2.1.1
          2 June 2022 at 2:19 pm

          Absolutely more investment is needed. But we have an excellent example in Auckland of how a local, accountable and financially responsible delivery can work. And we have analysis that shows it is a better delivery model than 3Waters.

          • Anker 7.2.1.1.1
            3 June 2022 at 7:50 pm

            Ok Patricia, what would co governance actually mean?

            Chris Finlayson is entitled to say we should embrace it, but that isn't good enough for me and a lot of other people who don't know what it means.

            I have had a very brief look at He Puapua, but I am no clearer.

            If someone who feels they have a good grasp of it tell me what it means. Cheers,

            • gypsy 7.2.1.1.1.1
              3 June 2022 at 8:03 pm

              It's poorly defined, and this vacuum is a major problem. The Tupuna Maunga Authority in Auckland is a case in point.

        • Descendant Of Smith 7.2.1.2
          2 June 2022 at 3:33 pm

          Councils have been under-spending for years – not matching either what they said they would spend nor the depreciation of the asset.

          https://oag.parliament.nz/2021/local-govt/part2.htm#:~:text=In%202019%2F20%2C%20councils%20spent,increase%20in%20the%20coming%20years.

          2.10
          During the past eight years, renewals ranged between 74% and 89% of depreciation for all councils. However, the effect of Christchurch City Council's rebuild after the Canterbury earthquakes did not give an accurate picture of how much all councils were investing in renewals, mainly from 2012/13 to 2016/17. Overall, there was a change between 2016/17 and 2017/18 where councils' renewal investment significantly increased, but this has declined since 2017/18.

          2.11
          In 2019, we reported that councils were forecasting, in their 2018-28 LTPs, an increase in what they were proposing to spend to renew their assets.11 All councils, excluding Christchurch City Council, had planned renewing assets at over 80% of the depreciation expense for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial years. Figure 5 shows that this has not occurred.

      • Descendant Of Smith 7.2.2
        2 June 2022 at 11:43 am

        The councils haven't had inadequate funding. Instead of putting money into upgrading and maintaining infrastructure (what many right wing politicians say councils should concentrate on) they have spent hundreds of millions on things like motor races, art deco buses, yacht races, ………..

        There are many, many things that councils prioritised over three waters.

        "The analysis showed Auckland lost a total of $91.6m when intangibles like social, cultural and environmental costs and benefits were factored in, and lost $145.8m from a purely financial standpoint."

        "The council bought the two converted American school buses for $837,000 in 2011 then spent a further $300,000 repairing numerous faults and getting them shipped from California."

        "Years of unexpected financial blowouts from large projects and events undertaken by the Hamilton City Council are taking a toll on budgets. Ratepayers are now paying for council mistakes or oversights as the city takes a knife to its services and operational budgets to stop a debt of more than $400 million growing to $700 million in three years. Hosting the V8 Supercars street-racing event is the largest cost blowout. In 2006, the mayor at the time, Michael Redman, said the annual events would cost ratepayers $7 million over seven years. In three years, hosting the V8s has cost the city $37.4 million."

        “The new $185m estimate is more than twice the forecast cost of $75.9m that Tasman District Council put out for public consultation in October 2017, and $80m higher than the $104.5m total at the time the decision to proceed with the dam was finalised in 2018. It comes almost a year to the day a $29m blowout was announced, taking the then expected cost to $158m.”

          • newsense 7.2.2.1.1
            2 June 2022 at 10:48 pm

            That’s a lot of links for a couple of million dollars. Or to put it another way less than half of one of Luxon’s houses.

            • gypsy 7.2.2.1.1.1
              3 June 2022 at 12:15 am

              Oh there's more examples I could give you.

              There's the billion $'s on mental health that achieved next to nothing.

              And then there's the STAPP.

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                3 June 2022 at 2:55 am

                Oh I'm sure you could provide more links to suit your slant – given your 'critique' of Wiles, it's no surprise that a Kiwiblog/Farrar 'Swarbrick swipe' would also tickle your fancy. Collins doesn't think much of Wiles either, but did have an interesting take on the last Nat government and mental health.

                Judith Collins says last National Government should have invested more in mental health [30 June 2021]

                Under that article, one comment in particular rang true:

                My concern is that when the nats get anywhere near the books again, they will channel our taxes to their donors by way of privatisation.

                Nevertheless, and despite evidence to the contrary, maybe Kiwis can expect rapid improvements in NZ's mental health services if Luxon ever takes charge. Should be easy considering how awful things are now.

                As for the inquiry into STAPP, the Auditor General's concluding thoughts seemed measured. Wouldn't have allocated that much public money to propping up private businesses myself, but it did also support workers.

                At the time of writing our report, $166.1 million had been allocated (but not yet completely disbursed) to tourism businesses. STAPP has sustained those businesses that received funding, although many might need further support to survive the ongoing impacts of Covid-19 on international and domestic tourism. STAPP was designed and rolled out quickly in an environment of significant uncertainty. Evidence suggests that officials did their job and provided free and frank advice throughout the process. As events have transpired, the trajectory and sustained duration of Covid-19 has differed significantly to what was envisaged when STAPP was designed in May 2020.

                By the time the Tourism Recovery Ministers made decisions about STAPP, officials advised that they were uncertain about how effective STAPP might ultimately be. However, some STAPP criteria were unclear and it appears that Ministers' decisions were made against a backdrop of uncertainty as to whether some key criteria were met.

                Looking forward to our next Nat-led govt bringing an end to this Age of Uncertainty – it will be a 'magical' time that can't come soon enough for some.

                • gypsy …
                  3 June 2022 at 11:28 am

                  The issue I was responding to was about waste of money by Councils. This (central) government happens to have an impressive record of wasting money, so I used some examples.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    3 June 2022 at 11:32 am

                    You widened the field of play, and I looked at your examples – all good.

                    • Incognito …
                      3 June 2022 at 11:38 am

                      When people run out of arguments they tend to widen the field (aka move the goal posts) as if they’re moving the discussion to a different (next?) logical level. It’s a sure sign that the useful convo has ended and that the exercise in futility has started.

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 11:42 am

                      I didn't widen the field. I pointed out that wasting money was not unique to local councils. That centralised organisations could waste money as well. Like 3Waters. Get my drift now?

                    • Incognito []
                      3 June 2022 at 12:46 pm

                      My mistake, gypsy ≠ drifter

                    • Descendant Of Smith …
                      3 June 2022 at 12:30 pm

                      Widening the field though was pretty irrelevant for two reasons:

                      1. The original comment I made was in response to the notion that councils had insufficient funds. As a rate-payer who has been watching my rates go up every year I have noticed the lack of investment in infrastructure, the laying off of experienced infrastructure staff in order to "save money" and the lack of planning for such replacement. My great great grandfather laid some of the original pipework in some of these towns and cities that is still being used today. I'm sure he'd be happy it is still being used but at the same time would probably say that it should have been replaced by now – was built for much smaller populations and is well past it's use by date.

                      2. It being a long observed phenomenon that right wingers who get elected on a platform of councils should only do stormwater, roads and sewerage agendas once elected tend to be the very people who underinvest in these areas and do the vanity type projects.

                      3. The cost is a traditionally a council cost not a central government cost and central government isn't saying they have no money – in fact they have offered lots of money. They are in effect having to bail out the councils for decades of underinvestment and a lack of council prioritisation.

                      I'd also argue many developers have been let off the hook – private gain but expecting ratepayers to pay for their new infrastructure.

                      I could equally point out a lot of wastage of expenditure in the private sector but it would be equally irrelevant.

                      Councils haven't even spent close to what they said they were going to in the spending plans they produced year after year after year. In the main they have screwed this up by repeatedly deferring to another day.

          • Anker 7.2.2.1.2
            3 June 2022 at 7:55 pm

            Gypsy you are completely correct. Not to mention the Auckland waterfront office the Govt leased, which sits emply, for the Auckland Bridge cycleway.

            Bomber Bradbury has an article today about a programme set up by OT to work with children who have been sexually abused, that had to be canned after a few months due to the totally dysfunctional organisation. Some millions involved in that.

        • gypsy 7.2.2.2
          3 June 2022 at 1:01 pm

          "The original comment I made was in response to the notion that councils had insufficient funds."

          Indeed, but central governments and organisations use exactly the same excuse.

          "The cost is a traditionally a council cost not a central government cost and central government isn't saying they have no money – in fact they have offered lots of money. "

          Well they have access to a lot of money via borrowing. Central government could easily fund investment run through local organisations such as Watercare. 3waters seems to me to be an unnecessary layer of cost.

          "I'd also argue many developers have been let off the hook – private gain but expecting ratepayers to pay for their new infrastructure."

          No argument from me on that.

          "Councils haven't even spent close to what they said they were going to in the spending plans they produced year after year after year."

          At least in part because they are financially hamstrung. And they waste money, as do central government.

      • KJT 7.2.3
        3 June 2022 at 9:26 am

        "Doing a Good job".

        What planet have you been on?

        Billions in infrastructure deficits.

        Polluted rivers, with the polluters slapped with a wet bus ticket. Over allocated water rights. The local council that tried to do something about it, in Canterbury, was sacked by National remember. Showing what National really thinks about, Democracy.

        Failures at water treatmen plants and pipelines.

        Lack of expertise in councils to manage huge infrastructure contracts, such as Mangawhai.

        You must be fucking blind.

        • gypsy 7.2.3.1
          3 June 2022 at 11:40 am

          You should have stopped at billions in infrastructure deficits. The biggest city in NZ has a very good water delivery, with significant infrastructure investments. We don't need 3 Waters.

          • KJT 7.2.3.1.1
            3 June 2022 at 12:27 pm

            Wrong.

            "Sewage regularly overflows into Auckland beaches, every time it rains".

            Dirty water: Sewage overflows blight Auckland beaches 'every time it rains' – NZ Herald

            The 1.2 billion, Central interceptor will help, but there are still thousands of kilometres of combined storm water wastewater pipes and pipework and pumping stations needing replacement.

            And Aucklanders complaining about High rates already.

            • gypsy 7.2.3.1.1.1
              3 June 2022 at 12:32 pm

              That's complete rubbish. I am a boatie and a keen swimmer. We rarely have sewage issues, and when we do it tends to coincide with 'hyper' rainfall events. The central interceptor project is a substantial investment in Auckland’s water infrastructure, and is being funded by Auckland ratepayers. It’s the sort of advance that can be achieved under the watercare model. If we think our water costs are high now, wait until 3Waters adds it's bureauracy. We don’t need it.

                • gypsy …
                  3 June 2022 at 12:56 pm

                  "Sometimes there are issues with the water quality at our beaches, especially after a heavy rainfall."

                • gypsy …
                  3 June 2022 at 4:35 pm

                  "Apparently, this is critical in deciding whether Auckland water infrastructure is adequate and will remain so without Three Waters or not."

                  Nope. Auckland's water infrastructure needs ongoing investment, as does the rest of the country's. This is about the best way to deliver the services, via local merged utliity organisations, or via a centralised utility organisations in the form currently proposed by 3Waters.

                  "Three Waters should address all of the above and more by proper design & implementation."

                  You're wrong.

                  Exhibit A – once again 'after heavy rain'. The same thing happens in many places, including, you guessed it, Scotland.

                  Exhibit B – do you understand why Auckland had water shortages? Precisely the same reasons the same thing (if not worse) would happen under 3Waters.

                  Exhibit C: Infrastructure investment has to be funded. It is highly unlikely a large centralised bureaucracy will deliver equivalent water services at less cost. In fact based on it's track record so far, the opposite is likely to be the case.

                  Exhibit D: False. Watercare is a Council Controlled Organisation, owned by the people of Auckland. Elected Councillors appoint the Board, who appoint the CEO. It is both democratically accountable and responsive. Contrast that with 3Waters.

                  Exhibit E: There is nothing to stop any utility being privatised, however it is governed.

                  "Three Waters should address "

                  You're prepared to take that kind of risk with tax payers money, and to reduce democratic accountability on a 'should'?

                  • KJT …
                    3 June 2022 at 4:41 pm

                    A "large centralised bureaucracy" is how we ran electricity some time ago. Run by engineers. Controlled by elected Parliamentarians.

                    It worked.

                    And it was a dam sight cheaper and more reliable than the split up mess we have had since Bradfords "reforms".

                    Watercare was deliberately set up at arms length from the council. Like Ports of Auckland the council has stuff all say in the running of it.

                    “Democracy”? Really?

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 4:53 pm

                      "Watercare was deliberately set up at arms length from the council. Like Ports of Auckland the council has stuff all say in the running of it."

                      Do you understand the difference between governance and management? I don't want the Council running Watercare. But as an Auckland ratepayer I want them exercising governance, which they do.

                      "A "large centralised bureaucracy" is how we ran electricity some time ago. Run by engineers. Controlled by elected Parliamentarians. It worked"

                      In the 1970's perhaps. Move on. The electricity industry in NZ works. We have regulation, investment, continuity of supply and competition. And around 80% of our electricity comes from renewables. I’m also unaware of any political party proposing returning to the 1970’s model?

                    • KJT …
                      3 June 2022 at 5:13 pm

                      Your idea of efficiency seems to fall far short of mine.

                      To young to remember things that worked before the Neo-liberals buggerred them, eh.

                      Don't bother schooling me on how companies work. I've been part of Management for years.

                      All the plethora of boards and other means of avoiding responsibility, in the same vien as private sector shareholders has not improved how things run. And greatly increased costs.

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 7:24 pm

                      "To young to remember things that worked before the Neo-liberals buggerred them, eh."

                      I remember the '70's well. We're far better off today, thanks.

                  • Incognito …
                    3 June 2022 at 5:30 pm

                    Nope. Watercare needs more than ongoing investment and BAU. It is and has not been keeping up and things will fall further behind unless something changes. Three Waters may or may not be part of that change. BTW, how are you getting on with the preparation of your lecture Semantics-101? I was really looking forward to you getting yourself into your usual knots of obfuscation & denial.

                    Heavy rains happen in Auckland, which is relevant. Heavy rains happen in Scotland. Heavy rains in Auckland can and do cause safety issues for the public at beaches. We agree that Exhibit A is permissible and stands. Good.

                    Water shortages are reoccurring crises that haven’t been addressed properly by Watercare. Something needs to change (see above). We agree on Exhibit B too. Good.

                    The costs of water infrastructure are high and will go even higher. Only so much of this heavy financial burden can be carried and tolerated by ratepayers. Centralising addresses this but doesn’t necessarily make the local operation more efficient and/or cheaper overall. One would assume that there’s a high level of duplication across the whole of the country, which could be dealt with by Three Waters. Exhibit C has been accepted too. Good.

                    Exhibit D stands; your argument about ratepayer oversight is pathetic. Governance structure of Three Waters remains to be determined. BTW, Watercare is wholly owned by Auckland Council, not by the people of Auckland.

                    There are possible layers of protection against privatisation and provisions can be put in place as is indeed the plan with Three Waters: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-legislation-improve-water-services-and-protect-community-ownership. Exhibit E survives the challenge. Good.

                    Lastly, indeed, Three Water should lead to an improvement and have a positive impact relative to BAU and status quo. There’s no point in change for the sake of change. Ratepayers are taxpayers too.

                    All sorted and it is not even dinner time!

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 7:44 pm

                      “We agree that Exhibit A is permissible and stands. Good.”

                      We agree heavy rain will always be an issue. Whether 3Waters will deliver better outcomes than Watercare is debatable and unlikely.

                      We agree on Exhibit B too. Good.

                      We agree water shortages occur. At present they are extremely infrequent. Could 3Waters do better? Unlikely.

                      “Exhibit C has been accepted too. Good.”

                      If ratepayers aren’t going to fund the infrastructure (and they are in Auckland), then who is? Taxpayers. Ultimately someone pays. The issue is about delivery. You seem to be of the view that a centralised monolithic entity can deliver a better water services than local entities. I disagree.

                      “Exhibit D stands; your argument about ratepayer oversight is pathetic.”

                      Watercare is evidence you are wrong. As a ratepayer, I am connected to the Board of Watercare via our elected councillors. That is far more directly democratically accountable than 3 Waters will be.

                      Exhibit E survives the challenge. Good.

                      There are possible layers of protection against privatisation and provisions can be put in place

                      These ‘possible layers’ can be undone by future legislation. Indeed given it is a large centralised asset owner, 3Waters is ore attractive to privatisation than smaller entities.

                      “Three Water should lead to an improvement and have a positive impact relative to BAU and status quo. There’s no point in change for the sake of change. Ratepayers are taxpayers too.

                      All sorted and it is not even dinner time!”

                      Fundamentally this is about delivery. I’m yet to meet anyone who argues ongoing investment isn’t necessary. But I see nothing in the 3Waters proposals that show that is the best solution.

                      Enjoy your dinner.

                    • Incognito []
                      3 June 2022 at 9:17 pm

                      Dinner was good, now onto the coffee.

                      Heavy rain is not the issue, it’s the infrastructure that cannot and doesn’t cope with heavy rain as the regular, frequent beach alerts show.

                      Water shortages occur and your memory is very short if you cannot remember how frequently and for how long they occur in Auckland. With the growing population and changes in precipitation patterns this may become an even bigger problem in future.

                      The shoulder of central government are much broader and the pockets much deeper than the many small and medium-size Councils. The needed investment is likely too much of a burden for many ratepayers and many already struggle with high rates (cf. asset-rich but cash-poor).

                      Watercare is not accountable to ratepayers, they have no democratic oversight, and their level of influence is next to zero except when Watercare chooses to engage with them through consultation on an ad hoc basis.

                      Privatisation of commons is always a distinct risk, which is why extra layers of protection are needed. No protection will be permanent, which is a red herring.

                      Fundamentally, this is not just about delivery, it is about so much more (cf. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-legislation-improve-water-services-and-protect-community-ownership), which you fail or refuse to understand. Much of it is still to be determined, which you also fail or refuse to understand. A central approach has its cons but many pros as well which you don’t want to see or accept either because you’re dogmatically opposed. You don’t even know what you’re opposing because it is ‘under construction’, so it seems to me you’re opposing change for no clear reason whatsoever.

                      How’s the weather in Scotland?

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 9:35 pm

                      “Heavy rain is not the issue, it’s the infrastructure that cannot and doesn’t cope with heavy rain as the regular, frequent beach alerts show.”

                      We agree on that. We disagree on how that is best delivered.

                      “Water shortages occur and your memory is very short if you cannot remember how frequently and for how long they occur in Auckland. With the growing population and changes in precipitation patterns this may become an even bigger problem in future.”

                      Water shortages are quite infrequent. But again, it’s about the best way to resolve those that occur.

                      “The shoulder of central government are much broader and the pockets much deeper than the many small and medium-size Councils.”

                      Yep, and they could adequately fund infrastructure governed and run by local entities.

                      “Watercare is not accountable to ratepayers, they have no democratic oversight, and their level of influence is next to zero except when Watercare chooses to engage with them through consultation on an ad hoc basis.”

                      The Watercare Board is appointed by democratically elected and accountable Councillors. Watercare is far closer to it’s democratic stakeholders than any 3Waters entity will be.

                      “You don’t even know what you’re opposing because it is ‘under construction’, “

                      If it’s ‘under construction’, then how do you know what you are defending? How can you possibly assert it will be better than the current delivery?

                    • Incognito []
                      3 June 2022 at 9:49 pm

                      If it’s ‘under construction’, then how do you know what you are defending? How can you possibly assert it will be better than the current delivery?

                      Why “if”? It is under construction, the Bill has just been introduced to Parliament. Your premise is wrong, I’m not defending as such, I’m arguing for a new fresh approach to a very old and worsening set of problems. Your second premise is also off, I’m not asserting it will be better, I’m arguing that it could be better, especially when carefully designed & implemented, which I struggle to see happening if we stick to status quo – if you want different results, you’ll have to try different things.

                      I find it exciting that we have a chance of shaping things for us now and for future generations, so why not grab this opportunity with both hands instead of throwing your hands in the air exclaiming ‘it won’t do any good!’??

                    • Incognito []
                      3 June 2022 at 9:50 pm

                      Nope, not in this context. Explain it to me.

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 10:02 pm

                      "I find it exciting that we have a chance of shaping things for us now and for future generations, so why not grab this opportunity with both hands instead of throwing your hands in the air exclaiming ‘it won’t do any good!’??"

                      Because there are better options.

                      Because this has been a less than transparent process.

                      Because some of the foundational thinking was flawed, including around the alleged financial benefits.

                      Because there is stench around this whole thing that is more about nepotism than sewage.

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 10:07 pm

                      "Nope, not in this context. Explain it to me."

                      Royalty's for iwi elites for one.

                    • roblogic …
                      3 June 2022 at 11:00 pm

                      I don't think Gypsy actually wants the problems to be fixed, it is more fun to spin conspiracies about Labour's nefarious plots and slander Minister Mahuta. Of course, if National were making the same proposals it would be a brilliant strategy, almost as glorious as the light reflections off Luxon's head.

                    • newsense []
                      5 June 2022 at 1:14 am

                      There’s certainly a lot of fear and anger there. Dude’s got a keen analytical mind and making a case, but the motivation is fear. And I’m not quite sure of what. Does Gypsy currently own water? Because I thought it was decided that no one owned water? So it can’t be taken away from you if you don’t own it right?

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    3 June 2022 at 11:25 pm

                    Royalty's for iwi elites…

                    'Royalties'? Intriguing – are you channeling the good Dr Newman?

                    And do you remember when Dr Smith improved the water quality in Aotearoa NZ's lakes/rivers with a stroke of his pen – reassuring eh?

                    Nick Smith’s water policy a washout [24 Feb. 2017]
                    “We call on New Zealanders to join in the fight for clean safe fresh water. We will not let the government get away with putting our people at increased risk. Fresh water is too important to the health of our communities and our environment.”

                    National party MPs – Dirty Politics or Dirty Water, the only thing they can be trusted to do is look after their rich mates.

                    Political roundup: Insights into Government processes and wealth protection
                    Finally, the head of Oxfam New Zealand, Rachael Le Mesurier, argues the Panana Papers scandal has overlooked the real victims. She says "As long as tax avoidance continues to drain government coffers the world over, there is a human cost" and it's those most harmed by tax avoidance we never hear about.

                    • gypsy …
                      4 June 2022 at 11:19 am

                      Dr Newman? No, I listen to the voices of Maori, who have been calling for rights 'akin to ownership' for some time. There are a number of threads to this, drawn together nicely by Michael Coote in the NBR back in 2017 (specifically at that time around fresh water rights). In that article he states this:

                      "The Maori interest in water rights is defined by the Maori Council as “both proprietary and cultural.” The Maori Council is pursuing a long-running Waitangi Tribunal case to have Maori proprietary claims to fresh water recognised in law."

                      Now I could mount an argument that a royalty stream to Maori could make a huge difference in addressing current inequalities. More likely is that any such income would find it's way into the pockets of far fewer, and not just Maori.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    4 June 2022 at 12:37 pm

                    Thanks, got it.

                    The royalty for irrigation water is expected to be about 1c-2c per 1000 litres.

                    And for anyone, like me, who has trouble picturing 1000 litres:

                    In New Zealand, the average person uses 227 litres of water per day:

                    Toilet = 86 litres per day
                    Bathing and hygiene = 68 litres per day
                    Laundry = 36 litres per day
                    Kitchen = 32 litres per day
                    Housekeeping = 5 litres per day

                    https://www.learnz.org.nz/water172/bg-standard-f/water-use

                    • gypsy …
                      4 June 2022 at 3:56 pm

                      And that's for irrigation water. For potable water, it will be considerably higher. At, say 10c per 1000 litres, the royalty would be around $42,000,000. Nice.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    4 June 2022 at 4:09 pm

                    $42 million? Per year? That’s peanuts, isn’t it?

                    Levy would bring in $2.37 billion per year.

                    That’s around $2,370,000,000. What are you so afraid of?

                    • gypsy …
                      4 June 2022 at 5:00 pm

                      "What are you so afraid of?"

                      1. A levy on potable water pushing up prices, along with the increase in price others are predicting as a result of the 3Waters model.

                      2. The money ending up in the hands of a very small number of people.

                      BTW – NOT charging a levy to water bottling companies seems to me to be unbelievably stupid. But bottled water and potable household water are very different animals.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    4 June 2022 at 6:35 pm

                    Can't get too worked up about a hypothetical/prediction (1), but absolutely behind your second point. Too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of Kiwis already, and that's for real.

                    “More than two thirds of all financial assets are held by the top 5%”

                    The Sad Slide of a Once Equal Nation [4 July 2017]
                    New Zealand, by most yardsticks, used to rival equal nations like Denmark. But New Zealand’s incomes have become much more unequal – and its problems much more pressing. Steeply progressive taxes could reverse that dynamic.

                    https://inequality.org/

              • KJT …
                3 June 2022 at 1:52 pm

                I bet you don't swim in the upper harbour after heavy rainfall.

                But we already know you don't live in the real world.

                I’m a boatie and a swimmer also. You are spouting, rubbish.

                • gypsy …
                  3 June 2022 at 1:55 pm

                  We frequently boat and swim in the upper harbour. I would have no qualms swimming there after rainfall.

                  • KJT …
                    3 June 2022 at 2:02 pm

                    You wouldn't if you saw the water quality tests I have.

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 2:05 pm

                      Cleaner than most beaches in Scotland though aye?

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 3:21 pm

                      "Still cleaner than privatised water in he UK."

                      Scotland is in the UK. I assume you mean England? Either way it's a red herrring, because NZ's water supply is not privatised, and no-one here is advocating that. Mind you:

                      "…bathing water in Scotland was notably more polluted than in England. "

                    • KJT …
                      3 June 2022 at 4:17 pm

                      You think ACT and National wouldn't privatise it if they could?

                      They have form. Remember the major fuckup that was building inspection, privatisation.

                    • KJT …
                      3 June 2022 at 4:21 pm

                      Ya think.

                      Water pollution: How clean are the UK's rivers and lakes? – BBC News

                      14% of rivers in "good condition" in England. Up to 66% in Scotland.

                    • gypsy …
                      3 June 2022 at 4:39 pm

                      "You think ACT and National wouldn't privatise it if they could?"

                      Well national have been in power for considerable periods over the past 30 years and havn't done so. But it's a red herring. No-one here is advocating that.

                      "14% of rivers in "good condition" in England. Up to 66% in Scotland."

                      'Rivers'. bathing water is more than rivers.

                    • KJT …
                      3 June 2022 at 6:43 pm

                      National and ACT, have just refused to support Labour Greens in "entrenching" 3 waters against privatisation.

                      Now. Why would they do that if they support public ownership?

                    • roblogic …
                      4 June 2022 at 11:12 am

                      To entrench the status quo of wealthy Pakeha elites – the old boys’ club – who obtained their wealth via legalised theft of Maori land and taonga.

                    • gypsy …
                      4 June 2022 at 11:24 am

                      "Why would they do that if they support public ownership?"

                      National and Act are refusing to support any aspects of the legislation. Why would they only support one? Not only that, legislation can be changed, so it's a rather pointless exercise. More productive to look at whether National have ever actually privatised water. They've had plenty of opportunity to, and never have. I think you're drowning in concpiracy.

                    • gypsy …
                      4 June 2022 at 11:28 am

                      Unfortunately for your argument, a centralised conglomerate, with a huge asset base and monopoly charging across the entire population, is far more attractive to privatisation. If that is your genuine concern, you should be opposing 3Waters.

                    • gypsy …
                      4 June 2022 at 11:32 am

                      "Someone who opposes Government doing something about cowshit in rivers…"

                      Ah, when did I say that?

                    • KJT …
                      4 June 2022 at 11:50 am

                      One of the intentions of 3 waters.

                      Are you not opposing it, now?

                    • pat …
                      4 June 2022 at 2:14 pm

                      Tell me KJT how 3 Waters is going to prevent "cows shitting in rivers" or groundwater becoming increasingly contaminated by nitrates?

                      "How will our water services be improved?

                      The Government has worked with local government, iwi and water industry leaders to create a detailed, affordable plan to make sure our three waters system is in good condition to meet challenges like population growth, climate change and natural disasters.

                      Under this plan four new publicly-owned Water Services Entities will run New Zealand’s drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services – currently operated by councils on behalf of communities.

                      The Government’s plan will build these new Water Services Entities (WSEs) on the foundations of existing council infrastructure, people, and expertise. The plan is designed to give the new water organisations the financial flexibility to make the necessary upgrades more affordable for everyone."

                      https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-Programme

                    • gypsy …
                      4 June 2022 at 3:59 pm

                      "One of the intentions of 3 waters."

                      Are you suggesting that the only thing this government is doing about cleaning up the waterways is 3Waters? You know that's not true.

                  • gypsy …
                    3 June 2022 at 2:00 pm

                    Yep, I'd far rather swim in the ocean than at a public pool.smiley

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      4 June 2022 at 5:32 am

                      If you don't want people to poo. in it, why would you call it a pool?

                    • KJT …
                      4 June 2022 at 11:06 am

                      Bit ironic isn't it. Someone who opposes Government doing something about cowshit in rivers, complaining about public pools.

                  • Molly …
                    4 June 2022 at 10:07 am

                    It doesn't specify in that article whether it relates to contamination in water samples, or actual faeces in the pool.

                    The following suggests it may be testing that results in high levels that is recorded:

                    "The worst, a solid contamination in the toddlers’ pool at Totara Park, forced a five-hour shut down."

                    I've always wondered how efficient swim nappies are at containing faecal matter.

                    It seems that given the varying nature and texture of toddlers faeces, it's realistic to expect quite a high level to escape into the surrounding water.

            • Alan M 7.2.3.1.1.2
              6 June 2022 at 7:11 am

              Yep the $2B central interceptor tunnel and branches is a major project on way to fixing that.

              No 3 waters, democratic tweaks, or central government changes needed.

              • KJT …
                6 June 2022 at 8:44 am

                It is a very small part of what is required.

                Way behind time.

                Those complaining about the rates to pay for it are not happy either.

    • Anker 7.3
      3 June 2022 at 7:46 pm

      Ok Patricia, what would co governance actually mean?

      Chris Finlayson is entitled to say we should embrace it, but that isn't good enough for me and a lot of other people who don't know what it means.

      I have had a very brief look at He Puapua, but I am no clearer.

      If someone who feels they have a good grasp of it tell me what it means. Cheers,

  8. Mike the Lefty 8
    2 June 2022 at 11:11 am

    It could be a case of Luxon and National (and certainly also Seymour) buying into the populist cult of going after tall poppies, although the political right always accuse the political left of doing this.

    But it is more likely just the sense of general nastiness that has come over this country in the last 18 months or so.

    To illustrate – New Zealanders a couple of years ago counted every death from COVID with dismay and demanded the government do more to prevent another death. Nowadays a dozen people die from the effects of COVID every day and it has become just another statistic – like suicide and the road toll.

    As long as the borders are opened, the tourists flock to our shores again, masks and vaccine passes are not compulsory and we can party all the time then a dozen or so deaths ago is a reasonable sacrifice – so it seems.

    Whatever mistakes Jacinda has made, she is a hell of a lot more capable a leader than any of those ideologically driven wannabes on the other side of the House.

    • Patricia Bremner 8.1
      2 June 2022 at 11:43 am

      Yes Mike but I am heartened to read that Givealittle says NZ has given a third more over these times. So the angry are not the majority, just the loudest group who get their voices amplified by some journalists and the algorithms, that is known and used in soundbites and memes.. by the opposition… true or not.

      • Descendant Of Smith 8.1.1
        2 June 2022 at 12:27 pm

        Some people are starting to get angry now as family members die from Covid-19 or complications thereof. Mate has just lost a grandparent. He isn't happy.

        I still think about a friend in America in a wheelchair who continues to not leave his house due to COVID continuing to be raging around him.

        I think about the employers trying to get people back into the office even though their vulnerable health conditions have not gone away and while there is a lot of protection from being vaccinated people seem to confuse this being a cure rather than reducing effects/spreadability.

        It maybe that the deaths continue to trickle as tourism opens up – time will tell.

        Normal isn't here yet but lots of people think it is.

        • Patricia Bremner 8.1.1.1
          2 June 2022 at 1:14 pm

          Yes, this Pandemic and the fallout continues to be painful. Bottled grief and anger has to have expression, that is well understood by National, and will be used.

          We need to do what Ad has suggested, and strengthen the Left in support of MP Mahuta and water.

          As to Covid, perhaps we need a Memorial Park to have place to go for consolation for the losses…. Perhaps each center could make a memory garden, where people can plant a tree or shrub? Something to show the grief is not forgotten. Just an idea.

      • Mike the Lefty 8.1.2
        2 June 2022 at 3:23 pm

        There’s an old saying: Empty vessels make the most sound.

  9. Blade 9
    2 June 2022 at 1:39 pm

    My, Luxon is in a bind. I personally have time for all opinions expressed regarding Luxon's piece on Joe Hawke.

    But first, why did Luxon write about Hawke on Facebook? Is there a connection? Was it a prudent political ploy? Was he paying his respects to a fellow NZer who has earnt mana with his good works?

    Luxon needs to remember racists vote. And, I agree, many pakeha have been pushed in the direction of becoming racists by this government. I have stated time and again the anger out in the community caused by Labour riding roughshod over our democratic processes is real.

    But Luxon needs to make his mind up. He can't straddle the fence on this. He will either have to accommodate people wanting him to deal with the ''Maori stuff.'' Or he will have to pursue a middle of the road stance on things Maori .

    Mickey, do you think National Party supporters are intrinsically racist compared with Labour supporters?

    • Muttonbird 9.1
      2 June 2022 at 1:50 pm

      And, I agree, many pakeha have been pushed in the direction of becoming racists by this government.

      I didn't realise this government had such control over the minds of feeble pakeha.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 9.2
      2 June 2022 at 3:25 pm

      As you succinctly observe, "Racists vote." Must be very confusing for Luxon – damned if he courts the racist vote, and damned if he doesn't. A ‘racist bind’ indeed, although imho he could safely leave the courting of racist votes to ACT.

      Aotearoa NZ certainly has it's fair share of racists – personally I'd prefer to see less racist behaviour, while others may feel that just a little bit more racism here (and especially there) would be an improvement. So what will Luxon give to racism?

  10. Blade 10
    2 June 2022 at 2:04 pm

    Oh, they aren't feeble. They are at home stewing because they can't do a thing ( at present) about the machinations of this devious government. Maori wards on councils for example. Napier already has two Maori councillors elected democratically – Sally Crown and Api Tapine, now Maori have Maori wards. Nothing like double dipping, eh, MB?

    • Descendant Of Smith 10.1
      2 June 2022 at 3:26 pm

      How is it double dipping?

      You can't vote in both general wards and Maori wards. You still only get one vote.

      It isn't disproportionately out of kilter either.

      The numbers of Māori wards is set in a formula in the Local Government Act based on a ratio of Māori electoral population and the total electoral population.

      And you don't have to be Maori to stand in a Maori ward. I'm sure any Pakeha who could convince Maori that they had their interests at heart would be welcome. BOP has had Maori wards since 2001 and the pakeha world hasn't fallen to pieces. What are you afraid of?

      • Nordy 10.1.1
        2 June 2022 at 3:48 pm

        Thanks DOS for injecting some facts into the discussion.

        The barely disguised racism that accompanies so much of the opposition to giving effect to Te Triti is so often a function of lies, disinformation and the spreading of unfounded fear.

        • Blade 10.1.1.1
          2 June 2022 at 8:34 pm

          Well, let's hear you? Spouting rhetoric is one thing, posting a good comment like DOS is another.

      • Blade 10.1.2
        2 June 2022 at 4:42 pm

        ''You can't vote in both general wards and Maori wards. You still only get one vote.''

        Yeah. true. But you can have Maori standing for the general seats and others in the Maori wards as I understand it. That would give Napier, if its Maori ward system was in operation, 4 Maori councillors, including the two already elected on the general roll. I wonder how those councillors got elected?

        And that formula… given local body elections aren't well patronised, especially by Maori… is it a true and fair representation of voting outcomes v elected councillors? I don't know.

        ''BOP has had Maori wards since 2001 and the pakeha world hasn't fallen to pieces. What are you afraid of?''

        You miss the point. It isn't democratic. It's racist. Mahuta has made sure of that. In the scheme of things it's not a biggy. But when one little democratic transgression is piled on top of another and another… you suddenly get Three Waters and co governance and Paheka being abused at Lake Waikaremoana.

        I'm afraid for democracy. I'm afraid we are trading in Western values for tribalism and collectivist stone-age thinking. I'm afraid European culture is being cancelled right under your noses and so many liberals just can't see it.

        • Descendant Of Smith 10.1.2.1
          2 June 2022 at 5:24 pm

          Maybe they got elected on their merits by white voters lol.

          Likely they got voted by the very same Maori voters who are on the Maori roll who will now vote in the Maori Ward elections and not in the general ward elections e.g. the voters will move over as well. Having taken out a large chunk of Maori voters from the general roll it would be unusual for many Maori to be elected. That is why there is a need for fairer representation.

          (Even putting aside the assumption that because you have Maori ancestry you represent local Maori)

          The fact is is that Maori have had little representation on councils because they are outnumbered by Pakeha. This goes a small way to ensuring that their point of view is heard. Democracy is far, far more than majority rule – it is about the interests of all groups including minorities.

          Your suggestion of stone-age culture is just pure racism. Still I look forward to your diatribes against dark age Christianity and it's conservatism – anti-gay, anti-abortion, intolerance, Victorian capitalism with all it's resource exploitation, and 80's Rogernomics with all it's focus on individualism. Cause when you say European culture is being destroyed in a New Zealand context I see much has already been destroyed by those forces re-emerging.

          State Housing for life, a decent welfare system that paid a decent amount, an 8 hour working day, 40 hour working week, the ability to raise a family on one income, high rates of home ownership, strong unions and so on. This was the culture that my parents and I grew up in.

          Look around you – you think working class people have it better now – do you think the continual telling them it is their own fault their life is shit and all they have to do is get off their arses is working for our country? Do you think landlords taking their hard-earned wages in high rents is OK? Is this the European culture you are afraid of losing – where homelessness is normal but it doesn't matter cause you can buy 70 different brands of baked beans at the supermarket?

          • Blade 10.1.2.1.1
            2 June 2022 at 8:25 pm

            (Even putting aside the assumption that because you have Maori ancestry you represent local Maori)

            This needs a reply because it's an important issue. I represent no one, Maori or Pakeha. These comments are my personal opinions backed up by experience. However, please remember whoever is elected to the Maori wards will never have anything like full Maori support because Maori consensus on any important issue is near impossible. This is why Maoridom can never move forward. Collectivism and tribalism stops any pan Maori movement at a grassroots level.

            ''Your suggestion of stone-age culture is just pure racism.''

            No, it's not. And I invite you to prove otherwise. Where Maori have the wood on the AVERAGE pakeha is with things that would come under the heading of magic ( used as a lose term). These type of things that Maori practice or believe in would be considered bizarre to most Pakeha. Yet they have power and still influence the way Maori approach some situations.

            . ''Still I look forward to your diatribes against dark age Christianity and it's conservatism – anti-gay, anti-abortion, intolerance.''

            No need. Newshub has done a hatchet job on Gloriavale. They are world leaders in moss exports and productive pursuits no more.

            Christians, anti-gay anti abortion intolerance?

            Cancel culture has taken care of that. People of faith, who live by a set of morals are no longer welcome in this brave new world. Hell, your local school can arrange an abortion for your daughter, and you would never be told.

            The rest of your post I will leave because your opinion is as good as mine. We just see things differently.

            • Descendant Of Smith 10.1.2.1.1.1
              2 June 2022 at 9:00 pm

              These type of things that Maori practice or believe in would be considered bizarre to most Pakeha.

              People of faith, who live by a set of morals are no longer welcome in this brave new world.

              Essentially you're saying that your superstition is superior to their superstition.

              Both are equally fucked up in my view and both have their moral positives and moral negatives. No difference in believing in God and believing in Taniwhas. Both were a way of explaining the world with the knowledge of the day. I've ever so grateful for The Enlightenment.

              I absolutely support religious tolerance but the notion that one is more valid than the other/s – that is simply bigotry.

              • Blade …
                2 June 2022 at 9:44 pm

                ''Essentially you're saying that your superstition is superior to their superstition.''

                No, you are confusing superstition with practical magic and spiritual practices that are past down from generation to generation.

                Unless you have practical experience, and have experienced these things first hand, you will have no frame of reference. We are talking of a science that has nothing to do with western science.

                All racial groups have their own practices. All this bs about Maori being special when it comes to such things is just that, bs. Yet, it we carry on the the present track this country is going down, trust me, it is going to be rammed down your throat whether you want it or not.

                • Incognito …
                  2 June 2022 at 9:51 pm

                  What are you talking about, Mātauranga Māori, te ao Māori, or something else altogether?

                  You’re very good at arm-waving and making hand gestures but you give no frame of reference and to me it sounds you’re making up BS.

                  • Blade …
                    2 June 2022 at 10:05 pm

                    You are welcome to your opinion. I laid it out in my comment to DOS.

                    You need a frame of reference. Without that you think it's all bs. I'm sorry I can't help you.

                    Just like you could comment of what you do behind the scenes when you moderate. What software you may use. What type of site monitors are in operation, etc. I have no frame of reference to judge whether you are filling me up with bs or not, because I have no experience as a moderator.

                    • Incognito …
                      2 June 2022 at 10:09 pm

                      I asked you a simple question:

                      What are you talking about, Mātauranga Māori, te ao Māori, or something else altogether?

                      If you cannot answer, as a Māori, I’ll have my answer.

                    • roblogic …
                      3 June 2022 at 12:42 am

                      That's a lot of regurgitated fear and division. You do realise that Christianity is also embedded in Maoridom?

                      A secular democracy tries to make room for many cultures and faiths. What you are advocating is Pakeha hegemony and whitewashing our history and culture.

                    • Blade …
                      3 June 2022 at 8:29 am

                      ''That's a lot of regurgitated fear and division. You do realise that Christianity is also embedded in Maoridom.''

                      Of course, my great grandfather was both an ordained Anglican minister and a practicing tohunga.

                      ”’A secular democracy tries to make room for many cultures and faiths.”’

                      That's an interesting point. I would argue by its very nature secularism by default limits the expression of faith based living.

                      And, given the failure of multiculturalism, that is not a bad thing.

            • Incognito 10.1.2.1.1.2
              2 June 2022 at 9:45 pm

              I represent no one, Maori or Pakeha.

              That sounds a little disingenuous to me.

              Only 2 days ago you said you were a Board member of Ngāti Tūwharetoa entities (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-31-05-2022/#comment-1891329)!?

          • Patricia Bremner 10.1.2.1.2
            2 June 2022 at 9:42 pm

            yesyesBrilliant summation Descendant of Smith. I wish I could do that. Thank you.smiley

      • pat 10.1.3
        2 June 2022 at 8:50 pm

        There are 6 seats legislated for males, and 3 seats for females…no matter the vote or proportion.

        Do females have suffrage?

  11. Stuart Munro 11
    2 June 2022 at 4:00 pm

    Well I for one can readily understand concern over co-governance proposals. How does that work? I'm not keen to see my franchise diluted even further, or democratic accountability for that matter.

    NZ has endured absolutely atrocious governments in my lifetime – and we've had next to no come back against the clowns responsible. Roger Douglas is still at large. Brownlee has not faced corruption charges (though his minions did), and Christchurch still lies in ruins.

    Now, imagine co-governance parachutes in someone like Shane Jones, or pretty much any of the waka jumpers. The outcomes will not be stellar. Mechanisms to review and replace need to be front and centre of any co-governance arrangement.

    • Descendant Of Smith 11.1
      2 June 2022 at 4:20 pm

      Imagine under existing systems someone like John Banks was parachuted in by National, or National formed a group of National people and called themselves Citizens and Ratepayers so the public didn't really know they were the National Party.

      Just imagine that!

      Any evidence that in BOP or any other area with Maori Wards for a while now that any such people have been elected to those wards?

      And actually I don't have a problem with waka-jumping – especially leading up to a new electoral cycle. It seems be me to help ensure that parties don't put people in just to catch the votes of a certain demographic and seems to me to be a legitimate form of protest if you are unhappy with your parties direction. Parties need to take more care with their list M.P's in particular.

    • Nordy 11.2
      2 June 2022 at 4:27 pm

      You may be interested in the Waikato River Authority, an outcome of the Treaty Settlement with Waikato-Tainui. Check out the WRA website.

      It is a good example of a Treaty Settlement made under a National Government that understood the need for acknowledging the wrongs of the past, and an agreement to work together to bring about a shared vision for the future.

    • Anker 11.3
      3 June 2022 at 5:27 pm

      100% Stuart Munro

  12. JustMe 12
    2 June 2022 at 5:50 pm

    National seriously has a major problem of being uncapable of placing what I call the Blame Game Drum firmly into the past.

    They practically blame everyone else but the faces staring back at them in their mirrors for almost everything that happens even on this planet.

    I used to work with Jim Bolger's cousin and he was so brainwashed by all things National that he would regularly beat the Blame Game Drum by blaming a previous Labour government for so many things that were completely out of Labour's control. Now that blaming was over 20 years ago.

    One would think that a political party like National would have a sense of maturity and be adult and not resort to schoolyard temper tantrums and blame-games.

    But National have shown clearly their still immaturity. As they cannot move with the times and the need to take responsibility for their actions they show how lowly they are behaving in a very poor manner.

    Lets remember National whilst in government happily blamed NZers and especially low income NZers whenever they could.

    And so in conclusion I wouldn't vote for a political party like National who just haven't grown up and still blame others even after 20 plus years.

  13. Mat Simpson 13
    2 June 2022 at 7:50 pm

    " Blame Jacinda "

    Jacinda and LINO are to blame for the following

    Housing

    Thousands living in destitution

    Corruption in bureaucracy

    Child poverty

    Weak foreign policy by allowing Australia to export all their hardened criminals back here.

    Weak response to the tax working group's recommendations and the commerce commission's pressured back down on dealing with the supermarket mafia , one foreign owned and one " proudly " New Zealand owned who regardless of their pitch of nationalism rort their kiwi brother's and sisters at the checkout.

    Continuing environmental destruction and water pollution from Dairy and other polluters.

    And many more !

    • roblogic 13.1
      3 June 2022 at 12:51 am

      And yet to move the dial slightly on any of these issues results in shrieks of outrage from business mandarins and a coordinated smear campaign in the mainstream media, protest convoys, Don Brash and John Key being wheeled out, and tut-tuts from the mad monetarist libertarians of the reserve bank

  14. Chris T 14
    3 June 2022 at 8:23 am

    Apologies. I am probably just thick. But what is wrong with this comment from Luxon again in the thread topic?

    "but then a minute later when co-governance was mentioned pivoted and said that Jacinda Ardern has to take people with them about co governance. That Jacinda Ardern must burn up some of her political capital to bring people along with her and explain clearly what it meant."

    • Incognito 14.1
      3 June 2022 at 8:31 am

      Scroll down from that piece of text and read on. Or scroll up and re-read the text immediately in front of it. In fact, read the whole Post.

    • Populuxe1 14.2
      3 June 2022 at 10:02 am

      Nothing specifically. Actually, out of context he has a good point. Personally I think there should have been roadshows, an hour long TVNZ special etc to inform the public. A lot of Three Waters remains completely mysterious to me even though I don't have an issue with co-governance models.

      The issue is the way Luxon yoked this issue to the egregious outpouring of racist nastiness in response to his acknowledgment of Joe Hawke and use of te reo as a way of turning the blame back on Labour. His attempt at a sidestep and spin, however, only serves to weaken that valid point in his attempt to score a hit against Labour.

      That said, pearl clutching over it is probably more of a distraction than anything else. I know National are awful and their only policy is to be pretty much against anything Labour does. I still really don't have a particularly clear picture of the details of Three Waters in an accessible way, despite it sounding like a done deal.

      The lack of transparency and the tendency to ride roughshod over the consultation process does irk me about this government somewhat. Not enough to not vote for Labour in the next election, but it's still less than ideal.

  15. Corey Humm 15
    3 June 2022 at 5:20 pm

    Labour ought to tread very carefully when tackling this issue, many of its own die hard voters express similar sentiments albeit quieter.

    I personally use Maori words as much as I can, I've been doing it all my life.

    I'm from a mixed race family and Ive lost track of the amount of times I've heard labour voters moan when an ad for a newly renamed ministry comes up and the maori wording is first and gigantic and the English name of the department is in smaller letter, I'll be getting yelled at for a week "your mates" "I can't believe labour has become the bloody Maori party".

    I wouldn't particularly call these people racist (hell half of them are Maori) I would call them your bog standard socially conservative working class people who always just vote labour cos their parents did and their parents did.

    Progress doesn't stop but as the party of the working class we ought not to lecture the working class for not being as enlightened as the upper middle class left, we don't want to end up in a situation where labour represents the educated and the nats represent the uneducated like in France or USA.

    But that said we can't tolerate bigotry and if you're a piece of shit attacking Maori language on a post commemorating a dead Maori activist then you're a piece of dirt.

    But still, the left needs to learn how to communicate with people on these issues better if we are to retain working class voters, not tolerating bigotry but also not writing anxious people off as scum when they voice their concerns politely. I'm seeing it far too often on a whole host of issues like sexuality, gender, race, language, speech we can't be the "if you don't agree with me you're blocked " brigade for too long and expect to remain electorally viable or talk down to people because they didn't have the luxury of university and some even finishing high school.

    The labour party after all is a coalition of working class interests, middle class social liberals, social conservatives, poor people, rich people economic lefty's, economic moderates, socialists and eww yuck neoliberals (looking at you Megan Woods) we can't afford to lose any components or our coalition so we need to talk to each other (maybe the neoliberals we could lose) but a lot of this term as a gay man seems focused on social justice, sfa on economic justice and getting a house to rent is just worse than ever atm.

    I feel like if we focused on economic and housing policies as much as we focused on social policy there wouldn't be this hidden anger amongst labours more traditional working class voters.

    • Blade 15.1
      3 June 2022 at 6:04 pm

      Great post.

      ''Labour ought to tread very carefully when tackling this issue, many of its own die hard voters express similar sentiments albeit quieter.''

      I posted this in one of my comments.

      ''Mickey, do you think National Party supporters are intrinsically racist compared with Labour supporters?''

      Mickey had the good senses not to reply, otherwise I would have clobbered him with similar sentiments you have outlined.

      • Incognito 15.1.1
        3 June 2022 at 6:28 pm

        You mean, you would have slobbered him with similar sentiments and ravished him with your reckons and riveting rants. You’re correct, Micky is a very smart man who uses his time wisely.

        • Blade 15.1.1.1
          3 June 2022 at 6:39 pm

          You mean he knows when not to kick the bulldogge unless he has a great exit plan.

          • Incognito 15.1.1.1.1
            3 June 2022 at 6:49 pm

            I mean he knows to thread carefully when there’s myopic chihuahua in the room that yelps when you approach it and might die if you play with it in a robust debate (aka rough & tumble).

            • Blade 15.1.1.1.1.1
              4 June 2022 at 11:39 am

              You do realise at grass roots level the social mores between people from the right and left side of politics is very similar especially regarding race.

              Seems Corey Humm is the only one to either perceive that, or have the balls to acknowledge it.

              There will be some hard decisions in the voting booth come election time for grass root Labour party supporters. On one hand they have had a gutsful of Labour pandering to Maoris…on the other hand they don't want the austere spending cuts National will implement, especially around social spending of which they are a beneficiary. But then again, National would cut back on pandering to Maori. Geez, I’m lucky I don’t vote.

              ''Labour ought to tread very carefully when tackling this issue, many of its own die hard voters express similar sentiments albeit quieter.''

              ps – See The Fern and the Tiki. A great book.

              https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/jnzs/article/view/77

              • Incognito …
                4 June 2022 at 2:55 pm

                Geez, I’m lucky I don’t vote.

                We’re all lucky that you don’t vote because it means you have nothing to vote for. I will rue the day that you find a bunch to vote for.

                I agree that at grassroots level there’s more similarity and common ground than genuine differences of irreconcilable opinion and values. Any differences are usually tribal (think sports, for example) rather than ideological and have next to nothing to do with the political fence that so many seem to want to erect and paint on a daily basis, with the same fondness & passion (zeal) as Trump & supporters had for ‘the Wall’.

  16. newsense 16
    5 June 2022 at 1:22 am

    Also- the discussion of water quality.

    There’s a reason for this website:

    The safe swim beach guide

    It’s because for a couple of years or more there it was dangerous to swim in many beaches in Auckland.

  17. newsense 17
    5 June 2022 at 1:46 am

    Whip up fear, he says. Not baseless concerns, but certainly not as much to be afraid of as has been whipped up.
    Newshub article where quote is sourced from.

    Would have thought Ben Thomas at least a somewhat prominent figure in NZ right wing thinking:

    Thomas said the fear of that abated and much more significant co-governance agreements were signed "without any public alarm" – "and the reason is because nothing happened".

    "In terms of the everyday person's experience of their lives and of their participation, nothing really changed from their perspective. So it became harder and harder for opponents to whip up fear," Thomas said.

    "Now it's being expanded into this wider area, and so there's new opportunities to alarm people… There are a lot of New Zealanders who don't understand that when we're talking about co-governance with iwi, we're not talking about some village in the middle of nowhere, these are sophisticated entities who have strong track records."