web analytics

Co-Governance is Orthodox Policy for both National and Labour

Written By: - Date published: 8:12 am, November 30th, 2022 - 412 comments
Categories: Environment, labour, local government, Maori Issues, Nanaia Mahuta, national, water - Tags:

How quickly we forget.

Most accept that local government and their water entities have been quite incompetent in planning or delivering safe water for citizens. Auckland. Hawkes Bay. Wellington. Dunedin. Christchurch. All the smaller council entities that have a C water rating and below. A few have done a good job at provision but they are small minority.

Most accept that our fresh water systems are in a perilous state. This has been made far worse over the last 20 years by the vast acceleration of fresh water use in dairy agriculture in the South Island but also across southern Waikato, on top of massive wetlands and catchment destruction from the deep south to the far north.

National are not arguing against a new national water regulator for quality and a national water regulator for water price.

No party has argued that there has not been long term underinvestment in water infrastructure, increasing public expectation, stricter water safety and environmental regulations, the need to account for growth, and greater resilience to climate change and seismic events. There’s over 30,000 water-infected people who can easily attest to this anyway.

To underline the point about local underinvestment, this government has spent over $3 billion in three years already fixing up the mess that local councils and their water entities are in, with:

  • The 2020 three waters infrastructure investment for councils of $523 million
  • The 2021 $2 billion into the future for local government and community wellbeing, supporting priorities of both central and local government;
  • Up to to $500 million to ensure that no local authority is in a materially worse position financially to provide services to its community as a direct result of the reform, and
  • $296 million to support transition into the pan-regional system

That degree of expenditure starts to show what local government and their water entities needed to have been doing, so the taxpayer has instead invested to make up for their investment failure.

Only Act is arguing against the case for massive and structural change.

The Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme will form four publicly-owned multi-regional entities with the scale, expertise, operational efficiencies and financial flexibility to provide safe water services for New Zealanders. This will include the entities being able to borrow more than councils for necessary upgrades and maintenance.

Other models were possible but they have gone for four entities. For Watercare it is a minor expansion of what they do already. It would not surprise me if the four entities mirror the pan-Council regions that the new Regional Spatial Strategies and regional Natural and Built Environment Plans.

The Government have not been presented with any alternative proposals that would deliver the range of objectives and ambitions needed to be achieved for all New Zealanders or do so in a way that could be applied across the country without resulting in large geographic differences in service delivery outcomes and cost.

Act’s view in their words is that “Yes, the Crown did sign a Treaty of Waitangi with iwi and hapu and what it have iwi and hapu in exchange for ceding their sovereignty to Queen Victoria was protection of their property rights, protection of their chieftanship – of their status – and protection of their customary lands.” We have seen Act’s politics driven under the guise of Don Brash many years ago – but then Don Brash lost National the election badly and most Councils have put in the Maori seats he thought were so racist.

Most of New Zealand have simply moved on.

National has been a strong supporter of Maori co-governance of water for many years. National itself passed the legislation that gave Waikato command over the allocation of the Waikato River and Waipa River. National also passed the legislation that gave local iwi command over the Taupo catchment in the 1998 Taupo Accord. National also prepared the legislation providing for the personhood of the Wanganui River. National also passed the 2014 legislation providing for full Maori control over the massive Uruwera water catchment.

Chris Finlayson the Attorney General under PM John Key has called National ‘nincompoops’ about co-governance. It was Chris Finlayson who drafted much of the co-governance legislation for the acts cited above.

Labour’s track record in co-governance goes back at least to 1987 and the Conservation Act which had the very powerful Treaty of Waitangi clause requiring in section four that those bound by it must “give effect” to the principles of the Treaty.

Both Egmont National Park and Tongariro National Park were founded on theft from Maori ownership, and now have co-governance at their core.

With the exception of Tongariro and Taranaki, Maori weren’t given statutory appointments onto park boards or the National Parks Authority, but Forest & Bird, Federated Mountain Clubs and the Royal Society were represented from the outset. All New Zealand national parks now have a form of co-governance upon them. Ngai Tahu are a statutory advisor to Aoraki Mont Cook National Park.

So under both Labour and National co-governance has been orthodox policy for over 30 years.

The world has not fallen in. On the contrary it is simply an accepted part of how we run things.

The real people who don’t accept this orthodox policy are the ones most focused on destroying any new environmental legislation: farmers and their agribusiness advocates. They have opposed every single piece of environmental reform in this government, and that is because their profit levels require that water and waste be a free resource for them alone. That is the way they make the dairy industry work, rather than pay for their pollution and their water extraction.

The wedge that the agribusiness lobby has sought to drive into New Zealand is fear of “co-governance”, that is to say fear that Maori will have a strong ownership impact on water management. On the long term track record of both National and Labour over multiple decades this fear is utterly unfounded.

Much of it is simply ignorance of where co-governance applies.

The pan-regional water entity boards are appointed on competence.

These boards report to the regional representation groups where the co-governance provisions apply.

The board develops the strategy, appoints the chief executive, monitors the execution of strategy.

The board itself is answerable to the regional representative group, who is there to represent the community interests.

The regional representative group will appoint the board members.

This is as it has been for conservation, tertiary education, public media, now health, and many other areas of New Zealand government.

Co-governance is orthodox policy for both National and Labour, and that includes water.

412 comments on “Co-Governance is Orthodox Policy for both National and Labour ”

  1. ianmac 1

    Well done Advantage. That is the clearest explanation that I have read.

    But there are those who I have spoken to who believe that the Maori are going to take over all water rights and that, they say would be a disaster and totally unacceptable. Pity I can't make the doomers sit down and read your column.

    • mickysavage 1.1

      Agreed.

      Particularly Chris Trotter who has come up with this piece that manages impressively to completely avoid any discussion of why the reforms are necessary.

      https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2022/11/29/has-labour-become-a-co-governed-party/

      • RedLogix 1.1.1

        Regional NZ needed operational amalgamation – but pretending that handing control over to iwi elites is the only way to achieve this is pretending something else again.

        • That is not what is happening. These will be elected people from local and iwi.

        • Shanreagh 1.1.1.2

          Apart from being a dog whistle what/who actually are 'Iwi elites' please?

          I have seen this phrase in a few anti co governance posts both here and other places. It sounds a bit like Brash of old, the One NZ stuff and Hobson's Choice. Is this the source for the phrase?

        • Hanswurst 1.1.1.3

          Besides any of the above, you've got a lovely straw man there with your claim that people are pretending it's the only way. It's just a model that has been tried and deemed effective.

    • Mike the Lefty 1.2

      I think it is even simpler than that.

      There are those who think that Maori will charge Pakeha for turning on the tap, flushing the toilet and installing a downpipe.

      You will not be able to persuade these people otherwise because certain elements of the National and ACT parties have whispered this to them and they believe it.

  2. pat 2

    If 3 waters and co governance are so benign/beneficial why do you suppose its proponents have been so unable to convince the wider community of such?

    • Robert Guyton 2.1

      Coz, racist.

      • RedLogix 2.1.1

        Coz New Zealand is a land of immigrants, all of whom arrived here over a long of period of many generations. There is zero moral argument to privilege earlier arrivals over later ones.

        • Robert Guyton 2.1.1.1

          Every human arrived somewhere from somewhere else. No existing rights of occupancy, huh?
          “Move over WE”RE here now!!!”

        • roblogic 2.1.1.2

          Of course there is. Under the Treaty of Waitangi Maori were guaranteed possession of their lands and resources, and those were subsequently stolen. Even hard right libertarians and capitalist munters should agree that property rights and the rule of law matter

          • RedLogix 2.1.1.2.1

            Under the Treaty of Waitangi Maori were guaranteed possession of their lands and resources, and those were subsequently stolen

            If you are going to argue that because New Zealand was once occupied (by right of conquest) by various iwi, and that all subsequent alienation was theft – then logically you are arguing that the only people who can rightfully own all land and all resources in New Zealand are the iwi chiefs. And that everyone else is a second class citizen who can stay if they don't mind paying rent.

            Yet Maori also became citizens of the British Crown and subsequently the New Zealand state. In principle equals with all other people living here. And that the very basis of all ownership and secure property title derives directly from the modern state and their citizenship.

            Essentially the Treaty is a hopeless contradiction – the First and Second clauses cannot be reconciled as currently interpreted.

            • roblogic 2.1.1.2.1.1

              The hopeless contradiction is the confiscation of Maori land using legal fictions, and the ongoing delusions of Pakeha settler culture that retrospectively justifies it

              Māori land loss, 1860-2000 | NZHistory, New Zealand history online

            • roblogic 2.1.1.2.1.2

              Scott Hamilton argues that the NZ Constitution Act, section 71, is a natural complement to the Treaty of Waitangi, and within it, recognition of Iwi authority to run autonomous justice systems and control resources in their territory.

              • RedLogix

                A better response – but in essence Hamilton is arguing to repeal the Treaty, the First Clause in particular.

                Either Maori are citizens of New Zealand and subject to the single, undivided sovereignty of the Crown – or not. This is a clear situation where the choices are mutually exclusive.

                Hamilton's twisted motives are even more starkly revealed in the next tweet down:

                9/10 Maori were kept from voting 'til 1867, & then given only a handful of seats, when they still constituted half the population.

                Which is a laughably selective distortion of the history. In reality Maori men obtained universal suffrage before all others:

                Although New Zealand's 1852 constitution was theoretically colour-blind, very few Māori were able to vote in early elections because they owned their lands communally. The wars of the 1860s fuelled debate about Māori representation, and in 1867 four parliamentary seats were set up specifically for Māori. As a result of this legislation, Māori men achieved universal suffrage 12 years before European men.

                The simple reason for this is lost on us moderns because we forget that in the early decades of the nation there was no system of passports or registration of citizens as such. The only available and practical basis for determining who was eligible to vote was land titles. But because Maori typically owned land communally their individual names were not on a title. Yet Maori who did personally own land on an title could and did vote. This rule equally applied to the large number of Europeans who did not own land as well.

                So much of the modern debate about the founding of the New Zealand state is contaminated with modern people misapplying our current ideas and values onto the world of our ancestors and coming up with stupid conclusions.

                • roblogic

                  "in essence Hamilton is arguing to repeal the Treaty"

                  Nope. See this interpretation of Article 1 by the Waitangi Tribunal.

                  "Hamilton's twisted motives… a laughably selective distortion of the history."

                  Rhetoric ignored.

                  "universal suffrage"

                  Umm, the votes of 50% of the population were gerrymandered into the 4 Māori seats.

                  To sum up, Māori claims to land and resources are legitimate and were not ceded to the Crown as Don Brash and his fellow travellers like to imagine.

                  • RedLogix

                    There were of course far fewer seats in those early Parliaments (the first having only 37), nor were there any Parties as such, giving individual MPs considerable influence. Moreover those four Maori seats were intended to be a temporary arrangement:

                    The expectation was that Māori landholdings would be converted to individual title within the next few years. At that point, the franchise was to revert to the normal rules based on property ownership. As such, the preamble of the Act made reference to 'temporary provisions' and the Act was to be in place for only five years. History has shown us, however, that Māori land stayed in communal ownership, and the franchise conditions for Māori electorates were extended in 1872 by another five years, and in 1876, the electorates were made permanent.

                    It is important to note that male Māori, due to their practical exclusion from the political process, received universal suffrage twelve years before European men.

                    Universal suffrage for non-Māori men over 21 years was introduced for the 1879 general elections.

                    It is difficult to imagine these days how radical it was back then to grant universal suffrage to Māori men.

                    New Zealand is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world, and those early fledgling years were a matter of learning on the job. Even then the idea of one person, one vote (that your argument is predicated on) was still some years into the future:

                    Parliament moved to Wellington in 1865, partly because members from the south dreaded the long journey to Auckland by boat. In 1867, Māori men gained the right to vote, regardless of whether they owned property, although they could only vote for the four Māori seats established that year. Electoral reforms in 1879 removed the voting requirement for non-Māori to own land, thus enabling all men over the age of 21 to vote.

                    In 1893, women also gained the right to vote. New Zealand’s Parliament was the first in the world to pass legislation giving women the right to vote, and therefore the first to achieve universal suffrage.

                    Again judging that era by modern standards results in stupid outcomes.

                  • RedLogix

                    To sum up, Māori claims to land and resources are legitimate

                    Given the the iwi chiefs occupied all of New Zealand in 1840, does this mean they are the only people who can legitimately own anything in 2022?

      • pat 2.1.2

        Id suggest that many instinctively understand that it will cost them more (potentially far more than they can pay)…and the government are unable to demonstrate that it will not,

        Irrespective of race

        • RedLogix 2.1.2.1

          On that point a tiny group of people get to exclusively issue Te Mana o te Wai statements that potentially determine everything about water delivery and treatment, that the Water Entities must comply with.

          Which inevitably impacts the capital spend all the rest of us have to pay for.

        • lprent 2.1.2.2

          Id suggest that many instinctively understand that it will cost them more (potentially far more than they can pay)…and the government are unable to demonstrate that it will not,

          It already is. That is what under-investment means. It simply means that the incipient slowly growing water problems hasn't shifted to a full blown and very expensive emergency fix yet that that decades to repair.

          In Auckland this was realised from the 1990s when the big bills came due to get more water and to replace and refurbish sewerage systems.

          It involved having to tap the stinking Waikato river and make it drinkable. Put in sewerage treatment and upgrade older ones. Dig up all of the century old pipes in the inner city and replace them with separated systems so that the harbours don't make you sick when you go swimming. I vividly remember getting boils from swimming at Pt Chev as a kid. Turned out that raw sewerage was pouring into the upper Waitemata from storm water systems when it rained.

          Auckland had pottered along from the early 1950s to the 1990s doing some minimal updates to their water systems. Adding a sewerage plant was way cheaper than fixing pipes. Having overcapacity in damns was cheaper than fixing leaks. But none of those fixed the basic problems of a growing city. It is now about 1.6 million people – more than 4x what it was when I was born here.

          Meanwhile the population had tripled and the already old pipes had added another 5 decades to their lifetime before they could be separated and replaced.

          We wound up paying massively to fix everything at once over the 2000s rather than preemptively doing incremental upgrades and maintenance. The incredibly low water and sewerage bills reflected that.

          In the late 1990s, the sewage treatment costs jumped massively because a over burdened 3+ decade plant needed an update at the same time that century old sewerage and storm water pipes started failing and mixing more often. We had a drought which caused real issues with water supply – so we had to start paying to fix all leaks – not just the ones the sprouted above ground.

          Most of the rest of the country is now in pretty much where Auckland was back in the early 90s. Most of water authorities have been notable in their lackadaisical approach towards fixing before it is broken. Almost all are incapable of fixing their own water issues because they haven't charged enough in the past to pay for the levels of required maintenance and planned rebuilds. And they don't have the payment base to raise capital to do it within any reasonable time frame.

          So far I haven't see a viable plan from anyone else on how to get around that fiscal hole. Act's plan for instance is just laughable. National don't seem to have one at all apart from a strong desire to continue dithering. The Greens would like to do more, but a lot of that seems to centre on fixes that will be really hard to sell politically.

          In effect what is going to happen is that the larger centres of population who (apparently apart from Wellington) have been doing fixes and upgrades over the past decades will effectively be subsidising smaller centres . They will do it with debt raising ability of the state and providing the skills to upgrade.

          In effect the larger centres will be carrying a large chunk of the debt servicing cost as the whole of the country is upgraded over the next 3 decades. The level of capital debt servicing will be as minimal as possible because the state can get rates that water boards would have no ability to get.

          But as importantly, the upgrades will have some coherence to them. Like looking at the Waikato as a whole rather than each town simply polluting it. For a centre like Auckland that is worth goal because we're drinking from the arse end of a lot of leaky sewerage and storm systems.

          • pat 2.1.2.2.1

            And the upshot of all that is if it is unaffordable (as all indications are, for if it were not then the case could be made) then the stated goal will not occur…i.e. the underinvestment and associated problems will continue.

            So the reforms are for what purpose?

            We add the cost of establishing the new entities ( already 3 billion as the piece notes), the bribes to the local authorities to attempt their acquiescence, the expanded/duplicated bureaucracy….all of which makes the whole process less rather than more affordable, and therefore less likely to succeed.

            Meanwhile the technical requirements to resolve the issues remain unchanged and will be undertaken by exactly the same personal irrespective of the governance.

            That hardly spells 'coherence'.

            • Anker 2.1.2.2.1.1
              • 100%. Red Logix and Pat.

              Thanks for all the points you raise. Why it is likely that the majority don’t support Three (or rather 5 waters)

              • Shanreagh

                See 2.1 and Robert Guyton's comment

                Coz, racist.

                I think this is it in a nutshell.

                • pat

                  So like the government you are unable to provide a compelling case for 3 Waters either.

                  • roblogic

                    I dunno, having a secure water supply is pretty "compelling" in itself I would have thought.

                    But thinking doesn't seem to be your strong point.

                    • pat

                      Still waiting for someone to explain the compelling case 3 Waters can provide that secure water supply.

                      Perhaps your superior thinking can provide it?

                    • roblogic

                      The case has been made, many many times, compelling and urgent enough for the Government to stump up several billion.

                      Our Water Problem in 15 Worrying Charts | Newsroom

                      NZ Engineers: Refreshing water | Engineering NZ

                      3 Waters Reform Must Happen « The Standard

                      Safe and affordable drinking water is a human right

                      Your alternative is shit

                    • roblogic

                      Here's another for you

                      Urgent need to change the narrative on Three Waters (newsroom.co.nz)

                      A litany of widespread leaks (100 million cubic metres last year, i.e. 20% of supply), boil notices in place for years in some places, affecting 5000 people (or over 350,000 if you count "affected sometimes"), campylobacter outbreaks (5000 sick in Havelock North and 4 fatalities, plus estimated 34,000 illnesses from drinking water elsewhere in NZ)

                      People complaining about governance are missing the point.

                    • RedLogix

                      Those are all good cases for an operational consolidation that that as one of the few people here with actual experience in the industry, I firmly support.

                      It is the concealed privatisation that I object to.

                    • pat

                      You appear confused roblogic

                      You continue to make the case for improved water systems….that is not synonymous with 3 Waters.

                      I doubt anyone dosnt desire improved potable water and less damaging discharge but that requires technical and environmental change and investment.

                      3 Waters MAY (no guarantee) enable such an outcome BUT it is inherently a more expensive model….and that makes a good outcome less likely.

                      Indeed many of our problems water related are specifically ignored by the 3Waters legislation

                    • roblogic

                      You've just shifted the goalposts. There is a ton of urgency and a good model from Scotland that we're implementing. Your negative attitude is your problem, I can't be bothered any more.

                  • tinderdry6

                    "Still waiting for someone to explain the compelling case 3 Waters can provide that secure water supply."

                    There is no compelling case. 3Waters is a flawed model that will ultimately fail.

                    • Muttonbird

                      pat's rule to life apparently is to not do anything at all unless the case is compelling, according to pat.

                      Your rule seems to be post nonsense on the internet.

                    • tinderdry6

                      Muttonbird…your post just confirms my point.

                    • Muttonbird

                      No, I said unless the case was compelling according to pat.

                      The case is compelling according to socially conscious people without grudges against Maori.

                    • Tinderdry6 []

                      Do you think it’s a good idea to add thousands of employees, create a huge and expensive centralised organisation and incur substantial debt if the case is not compelling?

            • ianmac 2.1.2.2.1.2

              A neighbour spoke angrily of Council sending out a young girl to consider their private water system. She had no real understanding. 3 Waters would be just as bad they said. But said I surely the 3 Waters would employ fully able experts to examine and advise and decide as opposed to poorly trained amateurs.

              • pat

                Are you sure they wont?….if there is a dearth of suitably qualified/experienced personal now how does increasing governance costs improve that situation?

                3 waters is not going to magically provide a surfeit of technically qualified personal , nor make them available to every location in the country on demand.

              • Shanreagh

                This requires some translation I think

                a young girl

                person who looks young but probably has a science degree that fully equips them to talk about irrigation or hydrology issues

                She had no real understanding

                possibly a case where bullkaka was not able to baffle brains.

                I thought private water supplies were not covered by 3 Waters. Was he seeking to draw off water via a stream?

                • ianmac

                  Shanreagh The people in inland Canterbury were building a house, stream turbine, and water supply. But to get it, it had to be approved by Council and Iwi. The "girl" was very young they said, but she seemed to have no idea how water flowed. Nor how piped water can flow uphill in parts as in syphoning. Her questions showed a lack of understanding. Turbines were totally foreign to her.

                  The long time view of 3 Waters is that the 4 schemes would be big enough to employ skilled staff. Sure in this case those complainants were not in the Town Supply scheme but it was part of why they were so vehemently anti 3 Waters. Scotland found experts.

                  • ianmac

                    And country schemes will be part of the requirements. I put in an ultra-violet and filters unit to purify our stream water. Neighbours were horrified that I felt it was justified.

                    • ianmac

                      Rural schemes are exempt when they supply just a single house. When a pipeline feeds multiple properties, it must be purified.

                      Of course when Nat-Act get in it will all be cancelled anyway.

              • Incognito

                Reform is also expected to unlock an additional 5,800 to 9,300 jobs, with the water sector workforce expected to grow by 80% over the next 30 years. Deloitte anticipate that reform will change the composition of jobs in the water sector, with the likelihood of some jobs being replaced over time. However, the reform provides significant opportunities for career advancement, including greater levels of specialisation and a lift in average wages.

                https://www.ruapehudc.govt.nz/repository/libraries/id:2dyphjrmg1cxby65trfv/hierarchy/sitecollectiondocuments/3%20Waters%20Reform/Govt-3W-case-for-change-and-summary-of-proposals-30-june-2021.pdf

                Of course, these are so-called ‘Trojan numbers’ and should be taken with a grain of salt according to some critics here. However, in lieu of more robust estimates they’re the best figures we have available to us on this forum.

                • pat

                  Salted or not?

                  5-10 thousand additional jobs (with greater career advancement and specialisation) at say 100K pa salaries, around 500 million to 1 billion pa additional…..on top of the additional governance costs and set up.

                  And yet…

                  "The analysis shows that without reform the cost per household could be between $1,900 and $9,000 per year over the next 30 years, depending on location. With reform, costs are projected to range between $800 and $1,640. This represents a much lower average cost per household."

                  https://www.dia.govt.nz/three-waters-reform-programme-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=The%20analysis%20shows%20that%20without,lower%20average%20cost%20per%20household.

                  How does the different governance reduce the cost of those positions by a factor 5?…..are the 3 waters governance teams going to breach employment law and pay less than minimum wage?.

                  • Incognito

                    economy of scale

                    • pat

                      You cant have it both ways …if you are going to reduce costs then you cannot increase the factors feeding into those costs.

                      Which is it?…increased employment and expertise or reduced cost for the product (safe water)?

                      The scale remains the same…the population and the environment is unchanged.

                      Cliches dont change the facts.

                    • Incognito []

                      False binaries are not facts either, even though you might believe them both so dearly.

                    • pat

                      It is quite simple incognito…either you can explain the mechanism or you cannot…..obviously in your case it is the latter

                    • Incognito []

                      Pg. 31 onwards in the same link I provided above (https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/#comment-1923848).

                      For example:

                      Enabling efficiencies and lower operating costs, by consolidating administration and overhead costs, and improving organisational capabilities.

                      Consolidating administration and overhead costs, and improving organisational and technical capability, can enable more efficient delivery and lower the operating costs of providing water services. While some of those cost savings would be balanced against increases in capital expenditure to address the likely backlog of under investments, the cost savings attributable to those financial efficiencies could result in lower water charges, relative to what they would otherwise have been.

                      Significant improvements in efficiency have been achieved in overseas jurisdictions that have pursued reform of a similar nature to that proposed in New Zealand.

                      I look forward to your next antagonistic contribution on this topic.

                    • pat

                      You may wish to reread your own link…and antagonistic? who's skin is thin now?

                      "While some of those cost savings would be balanced against increases in capital expenditure to address the likely backlog of under investments, the cost savings attributable to those financial efficiencies could result in lower water charges, relative to what they would otherwise have been."

                      The fact is IF we improve water quality it will cost MORE…and if we increased Governance costs (over and above necessary) it will cost further mor.e..and if we increase the workforce it will cost further more again….and yet we are told this model will save us cost.

                      You have been sold a pup.

                      P.S. and i forgot the increased financing costs

                    • Incognito []

                      And it will cost even more if we stick to status quo, that’s the essence of one of the arguments in favour of making changes now. Or we simply don’t improve water quality because it’s already pretty good for most New Zealanders except for the million or so who are serviced with water that doesn’t meet current standards. But who cares about standards, right? We can always dial them down. Anyway, Covid-19 is much worse than getting a sore tummy and the runnies from bad water!

                      PS I love puppies, they’re so cute.

                    • Poission

                      Incognito

                      How are they going to fund the entities?

                      In order to perform or exercise its duties, functions, or powers under this Act, a water services entity must not do any of the following:

                      (a)

                      use water services infrastructure as security for any purpose:

                      https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2022/0136/latest/LMS540266.html

                      At present the ratings agencies are busy re rating councils secured borrowing,resulting in downgrades so far.

                      Will an unsecured asset cost more to fund or less?

                    • Incognito []

                      Who is they?

                      The setting-up costs are covered by central government, AFAIK.

                      I’d imagine that once set up operating costs will be covered by households/ratepayers, as is the present situation.

                    • pat

                      The standards are not set by 3 Waters….that is a misdirection.

                      And Covid?…really….are you so bereft?

                    • Incognito []

                      I never set anything about setting the standards, so that’s quite disingenuous of you. Feel free to tell us how standards are being set in NZ at present and how they will be set in future if this is going to change according to you. This platform is yours and you have my almost-undivided attention until the mashed potatoes are ready.

                      Re. Covid, I was referring to the earlier and repeated aboutery of another commenter under this Post. Please keep up.

                    • Incognito []

                      What is your point with this link?

                    • pat

                      "I never set anything about setting the standards, so that’s quite disingenuous of you. Feel free to tell us how standards are being set in NZ at present and how they will be set in future "

                      except you did

                      "Or we simply don’t improve water quality because it’s already pretty good for most New Zealanders except for the million or so who are serviced with water that doesn’t meet current standards"

                      "What is your point with this link?"

                      It may be the water standards legislation for NZ passed last year that is seperate from 3 Waters.

            • lprent 2.1.2.2.1.3

              And the upshot of all that is if it is unaffordable (as all indications are, for if it were not then the case could be made) then the stated goal will not occur…i.e. the underinvestment and associated problems will continue.

              The upshot is that the state will be supplying a very large amount of capital to upgrade the inadequate systems – mostly the sewerage and non-separated storm water systems. They state can raise the capital cheaply compared to councils – especially the smaller ones. That is because the state are relatively risk-free and have a track record about being able to manage debt compared to councils.

              For the obvious reasons the government and taxpayers like myself simply don't trust the regional councils, councils and previously water boards to do the task. They have spent the last century polluting waterways through lousy maintenance and upgrades. That is mostly because they haven't charged water users enough to cover the lifetime costs of their water systems.

              The state through the regional water areas will ensure that the skills required for maintaining water systems in a adequate state are able to be spread across all areas in the country. Rather than what happens now where the smaller towns and cities simply cannot afford those same skills.

              The operating costs to water users of this will be spread across all people inside each of the 4 regions and based on the lifetime costs of maintaining water systems in the regions. This is likely to increase in the short-term because the first thing that will need to be done is to bring a lot of local sewerage systems up to spec and stop them simply dropping poorly treated sewerage into waterways and harbours.

              In Auckland after the waster systems got rationalised, our fresh water bill remained pretty much the same. But our sewerage and storm system costs nearly doubled to help fund those upgrades and installations.

              However in Auckland the water users paid for the capital to fix those waste pipes and treatment plants. The advantage of 3 waters is that the state gets much better borrowing rates than even Auckland did. Certainly a lot better than somewhere like (say) Levin or Napier can.

              Incidentally that is the reason why Auckland as a whole is antsy about 3 waters. We're effectively giving up the effort, payment, and resources of the last 3 decades of costly work on our water systems to the new water region. This is basically to help smaller cities and towns who haven't working up to scratch on their water systems or who have been outright free-loading. It is frigging irritating even as we know that it is necessary. It is the same fro any city or town who has been doing the work.

              Now the critical question. What is the alternative?

              We can't let councils and industries to continue to destroy the waterways and coast lines. There is virtually no place in NZ that isn't showing the effects of continually increasing despoilment because of poor sanitation and water handling.

              There are basically only a few choices because the current system is just simply crap. The current system shows absolutely no signs of being repairable. Certainly there hasn't be a shred of evidence in it from any other proposal. For instance, the only coherent one was from Act who said the councils could raise bonds. However in Act's usual complete lack of an ability to look at consequences – they failed to say what would happen when most small councils went bankrupt trying to pay their bonds while trying to meet non-polluting water standards.

              Do a centralised system, much the same as we have with the state roads, rail systems, and electricity system and for exactly the same reasons that those moved out of local control last century. Councils can't handle systems that need to be national in scope.

              Or just impose required water standards on councils that they can't meet them. Most are simply too small to have the required capital and skills to move from over all polluting to actually being clean. That mean that ultimately the state would wind up

              Nationals current and ever dithering solution appears to be to simply give more capital to councils. However that is what has been happening for decades to small councils. It has largely been wasted because they don't have the capacity to maintain those systems at the required standards because of local political issues and an inability to retain the required skills.

              That 'policy' if it is actually one simply isn't going to fly simply because why would I as a taxpayer want to keep paying for continual failures.

              • Shanreagh

                Thank you lprent. I've learned much from your summation.

              • pat

                The state will not however be funding the entities, the entities will raise the capital themselves …and at a premium from direct Gov borrowing. just like a TA, but because the assets ownership is ambiguous the Government will by necessity be required to provide an underwrite….additional cost to no purpose.

                We also have a duplicate ) times 4) Governance model which increases costs to again no advantage in the delivery of outcome.

                We have designed a pseudo ministry with none of the advantages of public ownership and all of the disadvantages of bureaucracy.

                If we could not afford the capital spend needed to upgrade/maintain our water infrastructure under the existing system as you claim, we certainly cannot afford a more expensive model.

                And that simply means we will spend more money continuing to fail.

                • Robert Guyton

                  That's a sensible comment.

                • Shanreagh

                  So is your preference for one entity instead of four?

                  • pat

                    My preference is for a MoWD funded by taxation.

                    However we have a neoliberal administration that refuses to increase taxation and so we will be taxed by stealth…i.e.water user charges.

                    And all without democratic accountability.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Pat wrote:

                      "I'd suggest that many instinctively understand that it will cost them more…"

                      Under your proposal then, many would know it will cost them more.

                    • pat

                      IF we are to improve our water infrastructure it will cost more, despite the Governments implication that 3 Waters will somehow save the public money.

                      The day the pricing structure is released by the entities (as they are required to do) the public will 'know' that fact…all too late.

                      It will be instinctive no longer.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      "implication"?

                      Your MoWD would, you say, certainly cost the public more.

                      3 Waters seeks, imo, to smooth the costs across the entire population and succeed in improving the service. BAU seems to, in a significant number of instances, load costs onto particular communities and does not seem likely, based on experience thus far, to provide sufficient improvements. As well, 3 Waters invites the voice of Maori.

                      Does your MoWD?

                    • lprent

                      IF we are to improve our water infrastructure it will cost more, despite the Governments implication that 3 Waters will somehow save the public money.

                      Complete bullshit. You should probably learn something about infrastructure and financing.

                      Most of the cost of upgrading or initial installation is in capital injections to do the project at the front of the project. The real cost is in the interest fees associated with it over the lifetime of paying off the project. Just like a road or putting in a grid line. The state can get capital at a price that is probably a half or less that a council can. Even more if it is a small polity having to cough up the money – ie the case through most of NZ.

                      The operational costs are usually pretty minimal by comparison. Moreover new plant also means that you're getting later technology. So instead of building with the leaky ceramic pipes of the 19th century or the concrete of the mid-20th or lead pipes or whatever was current when existing plant was put into place – updates are done with modern systems and materials. Those are typically selected to reduce maintenance. Just making systems with sensors and accessible by simple robots makes a hell of a difference to operational costs.

                      Furthermore there are economies of scale for any repeated project. What can be used for one project can easily be used for multiples. So providing a sewerage treatment system for Huntly isn't going to be that different to providing one for Foxton or Buller. Not to mention the savings in design and having engineers moving from one similar project to another.

                      In all likelihood most if not all projects outside of the 3-4 main centres will be cheaper to run and less expensive to upgrade or install than the current isolated council tried to merely keep up on maintenance on their current inadequate decaying and failing systems.

                      That is after all, why this whole project is entrained. Most councils were saying that they can’t afford to maintain their current systems let alone upgrade them.

                      However the conspiracy nutbars clearly haven’t been listening to the LGNZ for the last 15 years (Ie read some of their proceedings) as they stated that over and over again. Instead they have to wander off down conspiracy holes you as you are clearly doing.

                      The problem is that some of the councils would prefer that the state just gave them a pot of gold. Or that the state didn’t regulate pollution. The problem is that no-one with any sense would give them either that with any confidence that they could do a competent job after their track record over the last century.

                      I’m not interested in giving them a free pass. I’d just vote for making criminal neglect punishable by prison time for councillors.

                    • pat

                      "Complete bullshit. You should probably learn something about infrastructure and financing."

                      And you should probably read the legislation and understand the funding model….you appear to completely misunderstand what is happening

              • Poission

                Complete bullshit. You should probably learn something about infrastructure and financing.

                Most of the cost of upgrading or initial installation is in capital injections to do the project at the front of the project. The real cost is in the interest fees associated with it over the lifetime of paying off the project. Just like a road or putting in a grid line. The state can get capital at a price that is probably a half or less that a council can.

                The funding for councils is through the LGFA,which issues both Bonds for long debt,and bills for short term funding (which is used to sustain the councils budget deficits) (there is around 25b in total on issue).

                The issuance of bonds and securities comes with international obligations ( as they are traded on the NZX) such as US,and EU investment law for securities) These come with a general guarantee secured over assets.

                https://www.nzx.com/announcements/403340

                The importance of bonds is they have a secondary value are tradeable and liquid.They are not your house mortgage.

                The marginal difference in bonds for local and central government is around a1/4 %.There are substantive problems at the long end at present due to the debt inversion curves (where you can get over 5% vs 4.25% long)

                For the first time since 2012 treasury (yesterday) was unable to fill a tender on one long bond ( lenders are risk adverse at the long end)

                A substantive amount of the debt placement in bonds in NZ comes from super funds and insurance companies (who also need liquidity to sustain drawdowns and shocks)

                NZSF and ACC are sizeable place holders,for Government debt (local,central and SOE)due to substantive losses by both in various asset classes,they have limited available funding for some borrowers ( housing corp needed direct funding for both capital and operational expenses and is now out of the bond market) HCNZ assets however are on the government books (as is ACC and NZSF) as capital assets.

                The water infrastructure cannot be placed on the government books,nor can a security be raised against the infrastructure,so unsecuratised loans breach the lending covenants of the lenders,meaning costs will be more expensive.

                How the transfer of assets ( ownership ) will be undertaken is going to be very complex,as it will also require an unwinding of existing debt placement and will the local council still be paying the debt,without the income ? ( christchurch still pays a million a year on a debt for lancaster park raised for the world cup,even though the stadium is gone)

                There is substantive complexity in the business case,if it is over complex the overseas lenders will keep their hands in their pockets.

        • Robert Guyton 2.1.2.3

          "Id suggest that many instinctively understand fear that it will cost them more…"

          FIFY

          • pat 2.1.2.3.1

            Except you havnt fixed it have you Robert….if you could demonstrate that it would save the public money you would have the support you need.

            The (justified ) lack of trust in the political class is biting you on the arse

            • Robert Guyton 2.1.2.3.1.1

              Those who oppose 3 Waters would immediately transfer their allegiance if it was proven the new structure would save the public money, pat?

              How charmingly naive of you…

          • weka 2.1.2.3.2

            isn't it likely that water charging will be extended and those who don't pay for water now, will in the future?

            • Robert Guyton 2.1.2.3.2.1

              Is free poor-quality water better than safe water you pay for?

              • weka

                wouldn't have picked you as a binary thinker Robert.

                I've lived in Otago and Southland most of my life and the water has always been good

                • Graeme

                  I would contend that you are living in blissful ignorance.

                  • weka

                    you can contend whatever you like Graeme, but if you don't put up an argument to support your contention then it's a meaningless contention.

                    The shit and farm chemicals flowing into Otago and Southland rivers and water tables bothers me more than the town water supplies in those provinces even knowing some of the problems with the town water supplies.

                    We can centralise management and standards of 3W but we ignore the whole water cycle at our peril.

                    I’ll also just note the irony of blissful ignorance given you just made the argument for metered water without saying anything about impacts on poor people.

                    • Graeme

                      There's as much shit and chemicals flowing into Otago's rivers and lakes from human sources.

                      My comment about your blissful ignorance was in response to your contention that there was nothing wrong with Otago's water infrastructure.

                      Dunedin's just gets filtered to take out the visible bits and pumped out to sea. Stand on Lawyer Head in an onshore breeze and inhale, it stinks. I wouldn't eat anything out of Queenstown Bay, heavy metals are pretty high. Dunedin City also had a go at giving the good people of Waikouaiti lead poisoning.

                      There's plenty of room for improvement in Otago's water infrastructure and it's operation.

                      Water metering is about giving information to moderate demand, this reduces the cost of operation, and of upgrades to increase capacity to cope with high demand. This should reduce the amount everyone pays for their water.

                      I say that averaged charging penalises the poor as high water usage generally goes with an affluent lifestyle. I don't see that it's right for those with modest lifestyles to be subsidising the high water use of the affluent with their green lawns in summer, swimming pools and water features.

                    • weka []

                      My comment about your blissful ignorance was in response to your contention that there was nothing wrong with Otago’s water infrastructure.

                      That’s not what I meant. I wasn’t saying there’s nothing wrong (I lived in Dunedin a long time, I know about shit on the beach). I was saying there are lots of places with good or acceptable water systems, not everywhere is falling apart. This doesn’t mean there aren’t also places that need attention (some more than others), it means that we don’t have to use a sledgehammer on the nail.

                      The Hastings disaster happened because of neoliberalisation of NZ and that we value development and economy far above safety and wellbeing. It was a stupid fucking systems failure that could easily have been prevented, but wasn’t because we’re just not paying attention.

                      Likewise, decades of semi-privatisation experiments have had the effect of wasting time and resources and focus. We could have been attending to the essentials in that time because they needed to be attended to, instead of fucking around trying to get solutions to pay for themselves. Labour’s 3 Waters plan is a neoliberal plan, and as such it will bring some useful things online but it will fail in other more fundamental ways. I’d have less of a problem with it if Labour were also doing the mahi to empower local communities (including local authorities), but afaik they’re not, they’re more in favour of centralisation.

                      I have little faith that the new system will take into account low income people. Why would it when NZ already largely ignores poverty in real terms, and poverty is continuing to deepen despite much debate about it in the past decade. (I do however look forward to examples as per my other comment re fairness and low income people and will be happy to be proven wrong).

                      Co-governance is the saving grace in this.

            • Graeme 2.1.2.3.2.2

              That may happen but it's not due to 3 Waters reforms, rather to the increased standards and coverage of the Water Services Act 2021 which has a few more teeth than the old Health Act.

              For very small supplies the additional cost will be minimal, provided the supply is already managed responsibly. The regulatory regime that's coming out of Taumata Arowai has exceeded my expectations of its practicality and workability for small suppliers. If you haven't got a good filter or a UV system you'll have to get one, but you should have one already for your health's sake.

              Larger supplies shouldn't see any change at all from WSA, and may see a reduction in water charges if their supply has been well set up and maintained. If their water supply is a pig's arse, then it could be another matter, some places will have a bit of catching up to do.

              If the water supply only supplies one household (individual self supplier) then there's on change at all, that's outside the WSA and individual responsibility applies. There's pretty strict rules around what is and isn't an individual self supplier though.

              • weka

                I was thinking about metered water at the gate in towns and cities.

                • Graeme

                  Metering is about water management and mitigating what is really theft.

                  The people who think they pay 'nothing' for their water are really a bit deluded. They pay for their water in their rates, there will be a dedicated Water Charge in there.

                  That charge will be based on the cost of operating the network, divided among the properties that use that network. The problem is that some people use considerably more water than others. In larger residential settings (500 – 1500 m2) daily household water usage can range from 500 – 30,000 + litres / day. A water supply in that situation would be sized to supply 600 – 3000 litres / property / day.

                  Quite obviously the entitled pricks that think it is their right to use as much water as they bloody well like put and enormous strain on a communities water supply.

                  Metering aportions the cost or operation the supply based on usage, and rewards moderate water users by reducing the amount they end up paying and allows the entitled pricks to pay for the privilege. Hence they get a bit upset.

                  It's a highly emotive issue for some people. I've seen a quite congenial community meeting around street scaping turn into a near lynching in about 2 seconds when one of the Council engineers mentioned that the new toby boxes would be large to provide for future meters.

                  • weka

                    Sure, I understand all that. My concern is that the progressives supporting 3W as is will not also take a left wing approach which is that water metering of domestic supplies impacts on low income people and those living below the poverty line in ways that it doesn't impact on others. There are obvious differences between paying for water via rates, and user pays per litre. It's things like this, the obvious missing left wing values/politics, that bother me a lot about the 3W debate.

                    • Shanreagh

                      Yes I agree. I am hopeful that metering is not seen as an easy fix.

                      Without a reasonable allowance, particularly important for larger families, people with a disability or those on fixed incomes water metering quickly becomes another hard to plan for, cost. Particularly galling is that even though this metering used to be covered in rates and you would expect that costs would come down in rates or remain static in water costs this is not so.

                      My experience with water rates and rates has been that it is a cost plus exercise and while i may treat people equally this does not mean it is fair. I read years ago of a council that would not allow off roof catchment tanks in new builds even for gardens etc (I think it was somewhere in Auckland). You had to pay for a connection to mains supply to supply everything water even if you wanted toilet flushing or showering water to come from roof catchments.

                      I have a property with a water meter. Two off roof tanks meet any garden watering needs. The domestic costs for one person, one shower, one toilet, a couple of washing ups and possibly a load of washing came to much more than the allowance.

                      Without a reasonable allowance for 'normal' domestic use metering becomes yet another impost on people/families who can least afford it.

                      With the allowance kept higher it would still catch those who are wasting water trying to have lovely green lawns in a sandy soil, beach settlement etc.

                      There is still a high reliance on people reported pipeline leaks. I would hope that we can get a greater degree of watching per tech of water flows so that the possibility of leaks is caught back at the depot and responded to. If citizens don't report leaks it seems that there are no checks or no automatic detection devices and nothing is done. (Sure I may have correlation and causation arguments against this observation which has come from years of reporting leaks)

                  • RedLogix

                    The problem is not as bad as your raw usage figures suggest. The cost of your water supply is 90% fixed costs, capital, overheads, salaries and the like.

                    The marginal cost of delivering 1000l of water is around 50cents or so, so whether a household uses 500 or 3000 per day has relatively little impact on the operational costs.

                    The real impact of water metering is to trim back total consumption by about 20% or so, which in turn delays the need for expensive new infrastructure by a decade or so. But you only get this saving once – and in Wellington the general view was that by the time you accounted for the cost of installing, maintaining and operating the meters, and the social utility of people being free to choose how much water they used – we were somewhat better off just spending the money on more supply infrastructure. Or chasing down leaks in the pipeline network. Or giving people free low flow shower heads.

                    Another way of looking at it is that Greater Wellington consumes about 250l per person per day (which includes all industrial and commercial use) – which from memory put us around the global average. As a benchmark the very consumption conscious Australians are around the 200l mark.

                    I think it is accepted the best practice, lowest consumption a first world city might achieve is around 150l per person per day, but metering was only one tool to get there.

                    • Graeme

                      I wish I could get some households to live on 200l / day. That's my most water conscious. I've got a couple that will go through 100 x that and then turn around and say they haven't using very much water.

                      Your marginal cost reasoning is correct, provided there is the capacity in the network to provide the extra water. A lot of supplies just don't have that luxury and are operating at 100% + during dry periods. Water isn't elastic and there's finite limits as to how much you can push down a pipe.

                      Wellington is very lucky with water supply, it has regular rainfall so irrigation demands are almost nil, not quite the case in Canterbury and Otago where peak demand in summer can be dramatic.

                    • RedLogix

                      Your marginal cost reasoning is correct, provided there is the capacity in the network to provide the extra water.

                      Indeed and at that point you need more infrastructure. And you are going to need it sooner or later. Metering merely kicks the can down the road.

                      Here in Australia metering is only one tool, far more prominent, and probably effective, are the education and public awareness campaigns they run.

                  • Descendant Of Smith

                    Nah water metering like all user pays is designed to make poor people suffer.

                    The rich just pay their bills and remain unaffected. You really think they will rip out their swimming pools or remove their multiple toilets or stop watering their fancy gardens.

                    Electricity is the perfect example and the rich even get big discounts for paying their bills on time while the poor get their power cut off. Businesses get to claim their power costs off their tax and large ones get massive subsidies.

                    • weka

                      thanks for some left wing perspective DoS

                    • RedLogix

                      Yes – in my comment above I probably did not make it clear that I regard water metering as much less technically useful as its proponents like to think. Moreover people regard water as one of life's universal public goods, that like fresh air, should be constrained to the least degree possible.

                      And that fair access must be universal, regardless of race, class or any other identity.

                    • Shanreagh

                      Agree with this.

                      Whether deliberate or not the end result is poor people pay more, it has a greater impact on them.

                      If metering is used it needs to be deliberately fixed so the green lawn users are caught and not people trying to budget on very little.

                    • Graeme

                      Got a better way of providing an essential good, and also managing a finite resource.

                      Most of the metered charging systems I've seen have a household allowance (2-300 l/day) that's built into the basic rate, and then a graduated or progressive charge /l over that. On one scheme near me this charge gets very expensive once properties start using large amounts, it's considerably cheaper to organise another supply than use the potable supply to water their lawns. This has been very effective in moderating peak demand on a quite precarious supply.

                    • Shanreagh

                      [email protected] 2.15pm

                      The water metering system for Kapiti Coast District Council has no allowance. It also has a miniscule, relatively, amount per annum as an allowance for large families with large water use ($120.00 pa)

                      'All invoices are calculated on the number of days in each invoice period, and water used is charged for at a:

                      • volumetric rate (per cubic metre (1000 litres))
                      • fixed annual charge per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

                      See Water and wastewater charges for information about what the current rates are, and Explaining rates for more about our rating system.

                      There is no 'free' allowance of water in the annual fixed charge, and it applies to each separately used part of a rating unit (ie, a home and a granny flat).'

                      I find this type of charging a rort. It is to be hoped that while conservation of water is encouraged under Three Waters we do not get into a situation where every bit of water we use is charged for at the same rate as per the KCDC model. This allows rampant overuse while over users can easily avoid, because they have significant income, an affect on their back pocket. If there was a graduated scale it would be fairer. As far as I can find the standard rate for water in the KCDC area is charged for high use as for modest domestic use.

                      As well as the water rate I pay

                      Wastewater Disposal, and

                      Districtwide Stormwater Rate

                      based on the Capital Value of the property that is over 1/4 of the rates on my annual rate demand.

                    • Descendant Of Smith

                      Nor are there feasible ways, or to be honest any inclination, to allow for things like people with disabilities where bed soiling for instance is an issue resulting in increased water use or families with young children who may prefer to use cloth nappies instead of disposables.

                      And nor do I think these people should have to notify water authorities/councils of their disabilities in order to get discounts.

                      Enough agencies require such personal information without adding more to the list – again another thing we have seen in the electricity sector where you can notify if you have health issues if you want to prevent your power being cut off.

                      Nobody wants to tell person after person their health issues. Bugger off with your meters and your intrusions.

                      “On one scheme near me this charge gets very expensive once properties start using large amounts, it’s considerably cheaper to organise another supply than use the potable supply to water their lawns. This has been very effective in moderating peak demand on a quite precarious supply.”

                      So they don’t use less water then just have the economic means to go somewhere else. It’s a pretence then really that consumption has decreased.

                    • Graeme

                      DoS I'm with you on the lack of allowance for disability in local govt charging. There's a rates remission scheme administered by Central Government, but that only helps low income property owners, mostly pensioners. But there's not a lot that helps renters.

                      Hopefully the new 3 Waters entities are able to be a little more socially focused and provide water as an essential service. The structure and empowering legislation so far is encouraging. And hopefully the structure will be reasonably National proof, they'll want to run it "like a business" and try to sell it off like the power companies.

                      Patricia Kapiti would be the worst example of example of 90's user pays I've seen, that's a function of the elected Council and the policies they've implemented, you're right all it does is encourage growth in water use, and revenue. There are better ways of doing it that look after people and discourage excessive use.

                      Red The challenge is to provide a common good at the lowest possible cost, while also discouraging exploitation and theft of the same common good.

                    • weka []

                      Hopefully the new 3 Waters entities are able to be a little more socially focused and provide water as an essential service. The structure and empowering legislation so far is encouraging

                      Graeme, can you please give some examples of what is encouraging in the structure and legislation regarding poor people and fairness?

      • swordfish 2.1.3

        .

        Coz, racist.

        Dear old Robert … the Great Moral Exemplar … smearing the hoi polloi, the absolutely ghastly Great Unwashed, that horrendous majority of Deplorables who lack his "unusually-refined middle-class moral sensibilities" … you'd sell this Country down the fucking river if you thought you could derive some kind of virtue-signaling prestige enhancement among your fellow affluent Woke dogmatists, you pompous, reckless old bugger.

        Despite the I'm an endearing old hippy-fantasist who dreams of talking with shrubberies in Findhorn act … you & your cultural extremist chums are clearly not to be trusted one iota. You'll cheerfully facilitate all manner of corruption, nepotism, self-interest, inequities & degradation in govt policy … particularly where it involves Iwi Elites … and you'll always double-down because, in the end, you're spoilt narcissists who have absolutely no shame or conscience. A kind of socially-detached bourgeoisie that has no skin in the game … will never suffer the consequences of its radical social engineering … & therefore gets to be as socially reckless & hopelessly utopian as it likes. Other people … poorer, older, workers, the majority … pay the massive price.

        See, everyone, how I paternalistically protect & romanticise Corporate Iwi as if they're small, eternally-innocent, children … does that not make me morally special everybody ? … I mean the sheer self-indulgence.

        • Shanreagh 2.1.3.1

          Good grief……………..

          But now I've recovered.

          As I've said before access to your Dictionary of Insults using Bizarre, Unusual and Long Words would be invaluable. Also your Style Guide as to when to use italics, bold and … ellipsis … marks.

          While you're at it wrapping these up for me could you please include your medical dictionary just so we can all be confident we have the same meaning for words like narcissist. Also so we can find out if a 'spoilt narcissist' is very different from an ordinary well brought-up narcissist/

          Again, like a poster further up the page you refer to Iwi Elites as if they are something we all should know of. But I do not. I have asked him what these Iwi Elites are but so far no answer. I know enough to realise that they are a dog whistle of sorts but want to know a little more.

          Hopefully you can help.

        • Robert Guyton 2.1.3.2

          Beautifully-put, swordfish! I'm reminded of a gordian worm, bathing in a solution of MDMA; I especially liked, "…pompous, reckless old bugger.." – I sense a fondness.

          My on-the-ground experience, talking with people who oppose 3Waters has been…smells of racism, though I don't hold that against them; they have been subject to relentless fear-mongering, overt and covert, from the politically-smarter ones who seek to exclude thinking they find deplorable and threatening, from the discourse, haling mostly from the Right Wing.

          • Shanreagh 2.1.3.2.1

            I sensed a fondness too Robert.

            I value your contribution about the concerns of those you talk to about Three Waters. You would talk to a far more varied lot of people than many of us would.

            I am not sure where this fear mongering is coming from but there are bad players spreading bad info.

            As I have taken from what Incognito says we have to live with the treaty and if the Treaty partner has been bad mouthed by all and sundry how is any Govt going to forge a way through to give voice, and remedial legislation where it is due.

            Perhaps this is the end result to make the country unworkable unless the Treaty is repealed rather than honoured.

            • Robert Guyton 2.1.3.2.1.1

              It's just Robin and his merry men .v. the sheriff of Nottingham; same as it ever was.

            • Incognito 2.1.3.2.1.2

              The colonial re-framing of the Treaty of Waitangi in the 1980s (marked in 1987) as a binary partnership between two races, Māori and the non-Māori Crown, has lifted the lid on all kinds or problematic colonial dichotomous constructs such as race and racism. The seminal work by Anne Salmond and others is a real eye-opener. Unfortunately, we seem to be firmly entrenched [pun intended] in the current binary narrative and even if Government intends to steer us on a different collective path & journey, which I’m not so sure about, it may already be too late in this election cycle.

              • Shanreagh

                Unfortunately, we seem to be firmly entrenched [pun intended] in the current binary narrative and even if Government intends to steer us on a different collective path & journey, which I’m not so sure about, it may already be too late in this election cycle.

                Yes agree.

                If we/they are not careful we/they are going to run out of time to enact Three Waters before the house rises in December 2022.

                December 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15.

                Always better to get these things done before the break, after the holidays things usually don't seem to be as fearsome and scary and threatening as they seemed before.

                If they get it through then the way is clear for attacking what are likely to be the election issues.

  3. RedLogix 3

    Most accept that local government and their water entities have been quite incompetent in planning or delivering safe water for citizens.

    Quite the contrary, our larger cities have done a world class job for many decades now. They routinely achieve excellent A or B grade outcomes under a very stringent NZDWS reporting system. And without doing a detailed analysis I would estimate that 80% of the population are living in these areas. Characterising water supply in NZ as being incompetent, or in a crisis, is political bullshit.

    The outstanding problem is the relative gulf in resources between these large cities and the regions, and in this I have consistently argued for operational amalgamation. Using that as cover however to effectively privatise NZs water assets into the control of an elite group of ethno-separatist corporations is taking NZ in an dangerous and divisive direction.

    The core problem here is that 15% of the population are setting themselves up as a separate sovereignty with the power of veto over the other 85%. Recipe for endless strife. Either Maori are citizens of New Zealand, equals alongside everyone else, or they are not. Pick a lane.

    • Maori see themselves as guardians for future generations. A position we all need to take in the face of Climate Change. “The core problem here…..
      The idea they "will dictate to us all" who is "us all?" I see your lane.

      • Robert Guyton 3.1.1

        "Maori see themselves (in collaboration with non-Maori), as guardians for future generations."

        Imo.

      • Molly 3.1.2

        That's interesting. I see myself as a citizen of a democratic country, which for some reason is creating a division between Māori and non-Māori by use of policies and legislation that patronisingly treats all Māori as a homogenous whole, with a preconceived idea of what those with Māori ancestry think, believe and have to offer.

        There is also an assumption that all Māori support co-governance.

        I don't. My siblings don't. It's hard enough keeping track of the current representatives, without having to keep an eye on a dual system. Let alone, when (your) representatives are appointed – not elected.

        How do you know what lane Māori are in?

        (If I asked five of your Labour MP's what lane you were in, would you find that a strange way to determine an individual's view of everything?)

        There are aspects of Te Ao Māori, that reflect an environmentally considerate view, but there are aspects of Te Ao Māori that are exploitative. If Māori were truly considered as an equal partner, they would be afforded the recognition that within Māoridom there are the guardians – and the exploiters – the socialists – and the capitalists. This deference to a singular acceptable perspective of Māori is the best example of how little value is truly placed on equality.

        For the truly equal – the same accountability, responsibility and democratic principles would apply. And if those processes were found wanting, improve them.

        Co-governance is not a solution. It is the creation of a problem.

        • Molly 3.1.2.1

          Another problem with this in terms of racial division, is that if the Three Waters governance results in any incidents or degradation of water quality (as has been the case in the past) the blame will most likely be appointed to the unelected, not needed to be qualified, non-accountable iwi representatives whether they deserve it or not.

          (The lack of democratic processes in a democracy, means that when something goes wrong, many will assume the failure lies with the part that is not democratic or transparent – but which holds authority anyway.)

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.2

          "If Māori were truly considered as an equal partner, they would be afforded the recognition that within Māoridom there are the guardians – and the exploiters – the socialists – and the capitalists."

          Afforded? Who might afford Māori such recognition?

          I think you can't see the wood for the trees, the ngahere for the rakau.

          I'm guessing you won't be satisfied until the definition of every relevant Māori word, phrase and concept, is tightly defined and agreed to be acceptable, to the Oxford-whatever dictionary – pare and trim, reduce and boil-down till there's nothing but a crispy-crust of next-to-nothing!

          Please tell me otherwise!!

          • Molly 3.1.2.2.1

            No, Robert. A recognition that Māori – like non-Māori – will agree on some things, and disagree on others. Including definitions. Like any other demographic that doesn't seek to limit individuals by one aspect of their lives.

            "I'm guessing you won't be satisfied until the definition of every relevant Māori word, phrase and concept, is tightly defined and agreed to be acceptable, to the Oxford-whatever dictionary – pare and trim, reduce and boil-down till there's nothing but a crispy-crust of next-to-nothing!"

            Well, you guess wrong. But go ahead and continue to tell me what I think, instead of considering what I write. It's apparently the wrong Māori perspective – being as it is – not the approved version, so it's a familiar refrain.

            • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.2.1.1

              "whether they deserve it or not."

              There are some who don't deserve?

              It?

              What do you mean by it?

              What do you mean by deserve?

              • Molly

                Read it Robert:

                " is that if the Three Waters governance results in any incidents or degradation of water quality (as has been the case in the past) the blame will most likely be appointed to the unelected, not needed to be qualified, non-accountable iwi representatives whether they deserve it or not."

                • weka

                  why? And why them and not the unelected Pākehā?

                  Am also interested in what you mean by not needed to be qualified. Are you saying that Iwi will put people who don't know what they are doing into positions of power within the 3 Waters structure?

                  • Molly

                    When I looked at the report (admittedly a while ago so revisions might have occurred), there were specific requirements for local authority representatives, including a requirement for suitable expertise/qualifications. As far as I could see, the same was not required of the iwi appointed representatives.

                    "Are you saying that Iwi will put people who don't know what they are doing into positions of power within the 3 Waters structure?"

                    No. Just saying it appears that unlike the local authority, they are not required to AFAIK.

                    There is a difference between criticising process, and assuming that process was a deliberate act for other reasons.

                    • weka

                      don't suppose you have a link to the report, or the report's name? Everytime (including tonight) I go to look up explainers of how Three Waters will work, I just find a lot of PR about it.

                      What's your last sentence referring to?

                    • Robert Guyton

                      My experience with manawhenua reps is that their level of expertise on matters such as Te Tiriti, the pre-European state of the Takiwa, effects of post-colonisation development on Tangata Whenua and resources most beloved by them (mahikakai) and many, many other things, is VASTLY better than that of non-manawhenua community representatives, despite the democratic process.

                    • Molly

                      @Robert Guyton

                      "My experience with manawhenua reps is that their level of expertise on matters such as Te Tiriti, the pre-European state of the Takiwa, effects of post-colonisation development on Tangata Whenua and resources most beloved by them (mahikakai) and many, many other things, is VASTLY better than that of non-manawhenua community representatives, despite the democratic process."

                      So?

                      Governance structures should be informed by experiences but not predicated on those experiences being universal and perpetual.

                    • weka []

                      Huh? Robert listed the experience of the reps he knows ie they have expertise in those areas.

                    • Molly

                      @weka

                      Governance structures should not rely on personal endorsement. Qualification and expertise criteria should be defined for transparency and accountability.

                      Robert's "reps" sound like they'd meet any such criteria – so where's the problem in requiring it?

                    • weka []

                      can’t see how this conversation can go much further without the evidence for what you are asserting. Maybe try and find the document?

                    • RedLogix

                      the pre-European state of the Takiwa

                      How is that relevant to delivering water in 2022? In the pre-European era there was barely a few hundred thousand Maori in this land, probably 90% living in the North Is. With such a low population density you could get away with drinking surface water. Even so life expectancy was around the usual pre-industrial 30yrs.

                      Safe industrial water treatment being the single largest contributor to the more than doubling of human life expectancy in the past 200 years. (I would wager the large majority of regulars contributing here would not be alive if we had to live in those pre-European conditions.)

                      This is what Swordfish means by self indulgent fantasies – the idea that any kind of sane future lies in discarding modernity and embracing pre-industrial modes of living.

                    • Molly

                      @weka

                      If I bookmarked it, or downloaded it, I can't find the link.

                      But link here to the representative part of the bill, and follow through:

                      https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2022/0136/latest/whole.html?search=y_bill%40bill_2022__bc%40bcur_an%40bn%40rn_25_a#LMS538045

                      (You'll also need to consider the criteria of the constitution referred to, (I couldn't be bothered after following through the clauses in the bill about representation), but if you read on from Clause 91 it appears these constitutions will be written, so cannot yet be perused. )

                    • weka []

                      cheers, will take a look later on.

                    • Molly

                      @RedLogix

                      "How is that relevant to delivering water in 2022? "

                      Short answer: It's not.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Molly, seems you are asking that "qualification and expertise criteria should be defined for transparency and accountability." when considering a manawhenua representative going onto say, a council, in order to fill the co-governance/manawhenua rep position?

                      That's a great idea!

                      You'll be expecting that also, of the councillors themselves?

                    • Robert Guyton

                      RedLogix – I fear that you and your tribe (Anker, Molly et al) are tumbling down a rabbit-hole of your own digging.

                      To my suggestion that indigenous knowledge, that is, pre-historic, pre-colonisation knowledge is useful to have at your finger-tips when making decisions about resource management, you replied by saying this idea was a self-indulgent fantasy, echoing your tribesman with- the-spirit-animal name, swordfish, and continued on to claim that it has been suggested that"any kind of sane future lies in discarding modernity and embracing pre-industrial modes of living", something entirely disconnected from the discussion but clearly a bone of contention for you (feel free to point to where anyone has suggested this).

                      From my experience/research, river management, for example, benefits from the inclusion of pre-colonisation experience; that is, experience and retained knowledge of the first-peoples of the catchment; the creation of wetlands, the use of natural agencies to create improvements to river form and flow (beavers etc.), knowledge of the qualities of certain river-bank-loving plants as compared with others and so on, historical events such as slips, intimate knowledge of soil types, qualities of certain muds etc. Accounts from the pre-colonisation past; spectacularly large waves that swept away parties walking close to the shore, the extent and interconnectivity of caves in limestone areas, and so on, add usefully to the decisions made in these modern times. On areas unaccessible to pakeha; the Tītī islands for example, knowledge held by manawhenua is invaluable. These are just some examples of why such folk will be valuable players in the management of resources into the future; I haven't even touched upon the values and sensitivities manawhenua can offer to blunt, reductionist thinkers like you and your pals; don't want you to blow your collective gaskets, but can if invited.

        • swordfish 3.1.2.3

          .

          Beautifully put, Molly. Spot on.

          But I fear you're just toying with the barely adequate psychic defences of affluent virtue-signaling Woke White Saviours.

          How dare you erase their most prized in-group prestige enhancement techniques by literally inflicting emotional genocide on their highly paternalistic (& covertly racist) 'Noble Savage' Romanticism.

          How do you expect them to communicate their "unusually refined moral sensibilities", desperation for elite status & superiority to the ghastly hoi polloi if they can't treat anyone with even a modicum of Maori heritage as an eternally innocent & virtuous small child needing both their protection & vacuous, self-indulgent, dim-witted support at all times ?

          • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.3.1

            Molly has "a modicum of Maori heritage" or is closely related to someone who does (have I misunderstood?) and yet here you are offering your " protection & vacuous, self-indulgent, dim-witted support"!

            Aue te mamae!

            • Molly 3.1.2.3.1.1

              "Molly has "a modicum of Maori heritage" or is closely related to someone who does (have I misunderstood?) "

              Oh, Robert. So this is where it ends up…

              How much quantum blood do I need?

              Do you consider I don’t meet the quota, or am I just the wrong blood type?

              • Molly

                Robert.

                I believe I misunderstood your comment.

                I apologise for the reaction to a misconception.

                • weka

                  I think it was Swordfish who was engaging blood quantum rhetoric.

                • Robert Guyton

                  No worries, Molly. I respect your views. I'm quite keen to test the depth of them (not meaning they are shallow – they are not, imo). Sometimes I can't extract your full meaning without asking.

                  • Molly

                    Thanks, Robert, I appreciate it.

                    I type replies on an onscreen keyboard, so my usual verbosity is mixed with leaps where typing speed can't keep up,

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.4

          "a democratic country, which for some reason is creating a division between Māori and non-Māori by use of policies and legislation that patronisingly treats all Māori as a homogenous whole"

          Manawhenua reps on local councils here are selected by the combined rūnaka of the rohe and are chosen, so far as I can see, on merit. It would be difficult for people outside of the Rūnaka system here to know the merits or otherwise of the candidates, given that much of the understanding of issues particular to manawhenua here, are learned over time, through parents, older members of the hapu etc. Voters with only a slight knowledge of the issues important to manawhenua would struggle to understand what was needed and wanted by the combined rūnaka, even if it was written on a campaign flyer. Trust's a thing down here and should be everywhere, imo.

          • Molly 3.1.2.4.1

            "Trust's a thing down here and should be everywhere, imo."

            I know this is a fairly cheeky question to ask a newly re-elected councillor, but is trust really the best to strive for in governance?

            I would prefer transparency, and robust processes that result in responsibility and accountability being easy to determine and allocate.

            • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.4.1.1

              I didn't say, blind faith.

              Trust, with transparency, robust process, responsibility and accountability – all part of the mix. Generosity of spirit also, willingness to learn, collegiality, respect; big responsibility, being a local body politician 🙂

              • Molly

                Trust is an expendable item to some.

                Our local board representative – unlike your generous spirited self – proclaimed to the collective audience – of which I was a member, that the reason the planned community park project had not yet taken place was because tangata whenua had not given approval for the resource consent so it was still not able to proceed.

                At the time, this had to be taken at face value, because I was not up to date on this particular project. However, speaking to the local iwi representatives a couple of weeks later, they informed me that they were still waiting for council to provide them with both the request and the documents so they could provide an iwi approval (which they were inclined to do.)

                So, a mechanism that could have provided an accurate picture of the project would have been a publicly published timeline of the resource consent project.

                The local board representative was not lying, but he was creating a narrative that put the delay squarely on the local iwi, instead of where it belonged – council inefficiency. He was also aware there were no iwi representatives at the meeting, and played a deliberate misdirection to the audience.

                That is why robust systems are preferable, and they also encourage – by such robustness – a system that fosters trust, because failures in trust will be easily exposed.

                Trust – who do ya?

                • Robert Guyton

                  Given the unsatisfactory delays and the reasons for that you describe, it's possible to envisage a much better situation where council and manawhenua were more closely engaged and communications more direct and immediate – say, some sort of co-governance arrangement, nē rā?

                  • Shanreagh

                    'You're a very naughty boy' Robert.

                    wink

                  • Molly

                    No. As a solution to the lack of transparency and accountability – that doesn't make sense.

                    It's a one-size fits all predetermined answer that deliberately ignores the actual problems and purports to solve every current and future issues.

                    It is a mantra, not a solution.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Mantra?

                      This: "CO-governance is not a solution. It is the creation of a problem"

                    • weka

                      Co-governance opens the door to changing the mainstream system and making it more democratic and accountable. It does this by putting in out faces the fact that our current system isn't that great, and by showing there are other ways to do things. This is a fantastic opportunity and one of the reasons I support co-governance.

                      Don't know what you mean by one size fits all in this context, but it's simply not true that co-governance purports to solve all present and future issues. It's meant to make the system more fair in treaty terms. It's not a cure all, and it's on the other treaty partner to also come to the table with solutions for problems like the councillor you cannot trust. Māori do have difference ways of organising and relating, so that's bonus. Maybe non-Māori will step up to that.

                    • Molly

                      @Robert Guyton

                      "Mantra?

                      This: "CO-governance is not a solution. It is the creation of a problem""

                      That was my conclusive paragraph for my comment.

                      That fact you believe it is worth repeating – more than once – is a co-incidence, not an intended consequence.

        • Anker 3.1.2.5

          "CO-governance is not a solution. It is the creation of a problem"

          100% Molly. Agree with all you say on this subject.

          Thanks to Molly, Swordfish, Pat and Reg Logix. Also Tinderdry 6, Poission and Alwyn. You have articulated my thoughts about the whole 3 Waters debacle.

          • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.5.1

            ""CO-governance is not a solution. It is the creation of a problem""

            Great line!

            Email it to Groundswell.

            If they squeeze it up a bit, it'll fit on the rear-end of a tractor.

            • Anker 3.1.2.5.1.1

              I don’t have anything to do with Groundswell Robert.

              if you are impressed with line then it’s up to you to email it to Groundswell (or not)

            • Shanreagh 3.1.2.5.1.2

              Oh no, what will happen to the 'pretty little communist' sign if they have that new boring sign on the tractors?

              Next thing they will have an unwieldy sign about it being unfair to require farmers to pay for their agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, including the methane belched out by cows and nitrous oxide emitted through livestock urine.

              'Down with taxes on methane belched out by cows and nitrous oxide emitted through livestock urine' sounds catchy to me.

              They could have it serialised on the backs of several tractors along with the governance one. They'd have to make sure they did not get mixed up as we would not want the 'methane belched out' part to apply to the pakeha part of co-governance would we?

          • Shanreagh 3.1.2.5.2

            Oh dear booo hoooo crying into my gin…..I'm not on the list, and neither are you Robert. crying

            I appreciate all who have a view not just the ones who agree with my view.

            • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.5.2.1

              'cept swordfish, right??

              🙂

            • Anker 3.1.2.5.2.2

              No sorry Shanraigh, you are not on my list of people whose views I agree with. What I hear you saying is any objection to three waters is racist and that the people who don't understand three waters needed to have information dumbed down to age 9 so they would understand.( the implication being that if you don't understand, i.e see it your way, then you are a bit stupid) You may well be saying more than that that is the part of your message I pick up on most.

              I am calling out support for people whose views I agree with cause I got a mod note about links and typos yesterday and I don't want to fall foul of the mods. I am also really sick with Covid, so do n't have a lot of energy to write and research at the moment. So unless it is a topic I have at my finger tips, I will likely just endorse others views right now.

              • swordfish

                .

                I am also really sick with Covid

                Sorry to hear that Anker … best wishes & hope you're able to get over it as rapidly as poss.

                • Anker

                  Cheers Swordfish. Been sick for a while now and can't seem to shake it (covid), but I am o.k. Nothing compared to what you are going through.

              • RedLogix

                Same from me too. Best wishes.

              • Molly

                Take care, Anker. Hope you recover soon.

                • Anker

                  Cheers Molly. A lesson in patience for me!

                  • Anker at risk of being labelled a paternal pakeha, I will still offer what Grant has learned from his 3 bouts of covid. Rest, fluids, antihistamine and anti inflammatory meds. If it is continuing ring the Health line and register the fact. We sincerely hope you recover with no lasting issues, that is more difficult with other health issues to deal with. Good wishes.

                    • Anker

                      Thanks Patricia. I can ‘t imagine who would call you a paternal pakeha for giving someone some helpful, experienced based advice..

                      I feel very sorry for your son having covid three times.

                      I have tried anti histamines, but they have not proved helpful. Hadn't thought about steroids though. I cannot shift the cough, which is tiring and means i have to isolate (not too much of a problem). Healthline were helpful and I am in touch with my GP. Its been almost three weeks, but there is very little I can do (resting good, probably spending too much time on TS!).

              • Shanreagh

                'and that the people who don't understand three waters needed to have information dumbed down to age 9 so they would understand.( the implication being that if you don't understand,

                Now this I did not say. I referred to normal Comms advice about the preparation of messages to the public. I provided at least one scholarly link to this. There are mechanisms available to check readability of any material drafted for the public. Even on some standard word processing programmes there often are rudimentary, but useful, readability programmes. Often found under Accessibility Tools

                My view is that a reason for the confusion about Three Waters is that the comms coming from Govt on this may not have been run through a readability index. If this has not happened and the material is unnecessarily complex to read then people are

                a) put off reading

                b) if they don't read they cannot understand

                c) if they cannot understand they cannot comment. or if they do they advance wrong end of the stick arguments as they may have relied on others to interpret the material and these 'others' have got it wrong.

                Quite apart from readability programmes and ages to aim for a crude test of if comms have met their mark is looking at responses. If they come back with unexpected responses then the fault is NOT with the receiver (so people reading it) but with the sender (those preparing)

                This is thought to be comms 101 has not been met ie you have not focussed your communications on the receiver.

                Those are my thoughts from a Comms perpsective, that the misunderstandings of the Three Waters messages is not the fault of those receiving it ie you or me but in those preparing it.

                I wish you wouldn't misinterpret (I accept the sender /receiver issues) but I had provided a link to readability programmes/scores.

                I especially don't think that TS is the place for some sort of schoolyard picking teams/ favourites. I regret your apparent personal animus when you say I say these things when I am providing information.

                I just don't have the energy to respond to your views on my views on Maori aspect.

                I often provide info.

                If I have a definite opinion I usually say 'My view' or 'I accept' or words that indicate I 'own' the views

                smileyFrom a personal point of view get well soon and don't try too hard with this stuff. Covid brain is a thing (I found) and I think we can stress ourselves by keeping on trying to do a day's brain work or exercise. Stress is not conducive to healing.

                '

    • Ad 3.2

      Hmm let's see there.

      Dunedin. Long term poisoning of its citizens with lead piping. Decades to get above E.

      Christchurch. Sewerage plant collapsed. Aquifer contamination. Consistently damaged drainage.

      Wellington. A multi-year toxic mess in sewerage, maintenance, planning, and flouride.

      Auckland. Saved from piss poor multi-year planning failure by emergency application to Waikato two years ago.

      Tauranga. OMG the list is too long to summarise. I doubt even a decade of appointed Commissioners will unwind it.

      I'm very comfortable in the claim.

      There is no privatisation in any part of the policy or the legislation.

      • Poission 3.2.1

        Christchurch. Sewerage plant collapsed. Aquifer contamination. Consistently damaged drainage.

        The sewage plant was caused by a fire due to maintenance on the roof of the trickle tanks,so the repairs will be from insurance.The aquifiers have little contamination due to the age of the deep aquifiers (eastern suburbs the water is 1400 years old and getting older) The ingress of contamination was due to ponding around the valves,which when raised negated the problem ( eq slumping)

        The large drainage systems are nearly all complete,with the large holding ponds when finished being able to hold a years rainfall( this does not include the ability of the redzones to hold 10m m3 .The enhanced engineering will enable the removal of stopbanks in some of the redzone to create floodplains and wetlands.

        “The intent of the regeneration plan generally is to push the stopbanks away from the river, and reinstate the floodplain,”

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/129598635/let-it-flood-christchurch-red-zone-readied-for-return-of-wetland

        The biggest problem is the government wanting to build housing on swamps such as the cranford basin,or raumati plains (both high risk liquifaction zones)

        https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/realising-housing-dreams-k%C4%81piti-coast

        • Ad 3.2.1.1

          Everyone loves excuses don't they.

          Like a crippled insurance plant has no neighbourhood impact because an insurer is paying for it. What a cynical and ignorant accountancy approach to customers.

          In 2021 Christchurch thought they were "holding their own" from poor baselines. Plenty of suburb measuring points in orange or red or black.

          2020-Surface-Water-Quality-Summary-Brochure_Online-Version.pdf (ccc.govt.nz)

          Well warned about nitrates from Canterbury into Christchurch drinking water.

          Environmental failure over nitrates could 'ruin' Christchurch drinking water | Stuff.co.nz

          Complaints that bits of Christchurch are built on a swamp are silly because most of it was.

          Not let's turn to Wellington as another exmaple.

          A geyser in Aro Street; a sinkhole in Jervois Quay; sewage around Victoria St; residents without water in Karori after a burst water main, sewage overflowing into the harbour. Oh, and that’s just the past month.

          If it's chaotic on the surface, it's far worse underground. Between 20 percent and 30 percent of Wellington’s 2500 or so kilometres of water and wastewater pipes have already passed their use-by date, according to a 2020 Mayoral Taskforce report. They are cracking, bursting and breaking.

          There are such a long set of excuses and so few changes.

          • Poission 3.2.1.1.1

            The christchurch stream and rivers all show bacterial levels due to the avian residents ,sort of taking it like ducks to water,there are over 50k water fowl in the estuaries alone,we should shoot more,especially the canadian geese.

            With regard to nitrates,there is still little risk from lateral spread from the waimak as the clay boundaries above the aquifiers are not permeable,

            • Shanreagh 3.2.1.1.1.1

              Sounds like a few more of the 'excuses' referred to by Ad.

              So avian control is all we need? Does this include shooting any native ducks or just Canada Geese?

              Shouldn't we have better control of water fullstop including controls on avian life and pouring nitrates on to the land rather than piecemeal approaches?

              • Poission

                There is no livestock in the Avon localities shown,therefore the baseline contamination is avian,and always would have been,dating back to when there were 50kg drumsticks roaming around.

                Rivers always have bacterial contamination,neither the fish or wildfowl are house trained,clean riverwater would be very unnatural.

                • roblogic

                  Considering that Christchurch is founded on a former wetland, its present state is far from "natural". Rather than blaming wildlife, we could be making efforts to restore natural ecosystems.

                  [image resized]

          • tinderdry6 3.2.1.1.2

            "Everyone loves excuses don't they."

            And the excuses we'll get when 3waters doesn't solve these issues will come with a much higher price tag.

          • alwyn 3.2.1.1.3

            "let's turn to Wellington as another exmaple".

            As a long time Wellington resident I would say that most of our problems have been caused by the Council which has been dominated by a bunch of Labour and Green Party members for the last 20 or so years.

            They are far more interested in clogging up the streets with cycle lanes that in spending the money on useful things like water supply and storm water and sewage disposal.

            Meanwhile the rates rise at an ever faster rate but $40,000 dollar pedestrian crossings are painted on the city streets.

            • Robert Guyton 3.2.1.1.3.1

              Wow, Alwyn – great "off-to-the-side" snark at your political opponents!

              Respect!

              • Poission

                They (WCC) just got downgraded by S&P,due to rising debt,fiscal imbalance.The cost of debt servicing on their next note issue will be higher.

            • Shanreagh 3.2.1.1.3.2

              You live in a different Wellington to me obviously.

            • RedLogix 3.2.1.1.3.3

              As a long time Wellington resident I would say that most of our problems have been caused by the Council which has been dominated by a bunch of Labour and Green Party members for the last 20 or so years.

              From first hand knowledge – I can confirm you are absolutely correct. By contrast the Porirua and the two Hutt cities managed far better.

              • Shanreagh

                Was Andy Foster Labour or Greens? Was he endorsed by either?

                I usually don't vote for a party in local body elections, I did for the first time this year to get Tory Whanau. I specifically voted in previous years on an issue/s.

                The Foster issue was trying to undo the horrible mess with possible horrible future land use/apartment buildings for the wealthy at Shelly Bay. (Even though in my heart of hearts I felt that the legal issues would be difficult to find a way through)

    • Ad 3.3

      Few regions are exempt from outbreaks: a history of New Zealand's water-borne major outbreaks here:

      Appendix 2: Outbreaks of Water-borne Disease in New Zealand | Ministry for the Environment

    • swordfish 3.4

      .

      Red @ 3

      Once again, you've hit the nail squarely on the head … concise, razor-sharp summary … cutting through all the increasingly desperate rhetoric/subterfuge designed to sell a dog to a more than sceptical public.

      • Shanreagh 3.4.1

        But he still has not answered my query about who these Iwi Elites are?

        You have also used this phrase so I am hoping that being a person who is careful with words you will be able to tell me

        What is the meaning of the phrase 'Iwi Elites'? Who do you refer to when you call a group an Iwi Elite? Presumably it is pejorative as neither of you are using it in a very complementary way.

        • Robert Guyton 3.4.1.1

          You know, Shanreah, the Māori elite, the rich Māoris, the really scary Māoris who have managed to get their hands on our levers of power. Those guys.

        • tinderdry6 3.4.1.2

          I can't speak for others, but in my experience the term 'Māori elites' is used synonymously with 'corporate' Māori and is most commonly used by Māori of other Māori. There is a lot of concern in Tāmaki at the moment about corporate Māori benefitting from FRR clauses – these are discussions happening in the public domain right now.

          • RedLogix 3.4.1.2.1

            In practice that is exactly what I mean when I use the phrase. There are two reasons why I use it.

            One is the vast gulf between those at the top of the system and the large mass of those who simply do not count. The noble savage idea that the tribes are all one big happy egalitarian, hippie utopian family is pure bunk. Families that descend from the pre-European rangatira run the show and always will.

            The other is that most non-Maori rarely understand what the term whakapapa means. While in literal terms it means knowing your family tree, in practice it also determines your social status within the iwi in very precise gradations. Maori society is extremely class oriented, in a precise, personal pecking order right from the elites at the top down to the broad mass of commoners and below them the descendants of their slaves.

            It is fair to say that rangatira status is not entirely hereditary, nor directly linked to wealth. Energy and competence can and does rise to positions of prominence – but typically only for that individual.

            Whakapapa is not something most Maori will express in public, no more than most Europeans will talk about our experience of class in our own lives. For many Maori however there is the double whammy of being at the bottom of the social heaps of two cultures at the same time.

            Here in Australia though I have had a number of conversations with Maori telling me that while they often miss New Zealand and whanau terribly, visits back home remind them of why they cannot live there anymore.

            (If Molly happens to read this – I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. I am sure there is more to be said on this. )

            • Molly 3.4.1.2.1.1

              I was always told that the iwi groupings, were conceived and determined at the request of the Crown. It was too difficult dealing with all the smaller hapu groupings, and as bigger entities, it was an administrative efficiency to be able to deal with fewer representatives that spoke for larger groups of people.

              If what I was told is true, there is some remnants of that origin in Wikipedia's definition:

              " In Māori iwi roughly means "people" or "nation",[1][2] and is often translated as "tribe",[3] or "a confederation of tribes". "

              There is an interesting paragraph further down, where it is noted that urban Māori are not connected to their iwi:

              "The following extract from a 2000 High Court of New Zealand judgment discussing the process of settling fishing rights illustrates some of the issues:

              "… 81 per cent of Maori now live in urban areas, at least one-third live outside their tribal influence, more than one-quarter do not know their iwi or for some reason do not choose to affiliate with it, at least 70 per cent live outside the traditional tribal territory and these will have difficulties, which in many cases will be severe, in both relating to their tribal heritage and in accessing benefits from the settlement. It is also said that many Maori reject tribal affiliation because of a working-class unemployed attitude, defiance and frustration. Related but less important factors, are that a hapu may belong to more than one iwi, a particular hapu may have belonged to different iwi at different times, the tension caused by the social and economic power moving from the iwi down rather than from the hapu up, and the fact that many iwi do not recognise spouses and adoptees who do not have kinship links.[13]

              In the 2006 census, 16 per cent of the 643,977 people who claimed Māori ancestry did not know their iwi. Another 11 per cent did not state their iwi, or stated only a general geographic region, or merely gave a waka name.[14] Initiatives like the Iwi Helpline are trying to make it easier for people to identify their iwi,[15] and the proportion who "don't know" dropped relative to previous censuses.[14]"

              A statistical analysis will have to take into account the fact that for a while, if you were filling in official forms and you ticked the Māori ancestry, the follow up questions did not allow you to not choose an iwi. I have memories of service providers telling me that they would choose one, if I was unable to provide one. I would put little credence in the increase of iwi affiliation referred to above if – as I assume – this was repeated every time someone filled in a form.

              But the increase provided the numbers to increase negotiation power for those representing the iwi groups, so the reason for that insistence is clear.

              So, what I think is happening now – is that it serves certain members of both the Māori and non-Māori populations to spin this proposal as all about colonisation and redressing the failures of the Crown in the past.

              Environmentalists hark back to the halcyon days of pre-European plenty, and have found a way to utilise Māori as a treaty partner to bring about the change they want.

              Te Ao Māori cannot be denied, otherwise it is racist, so let's protect the land and the water and call it honouring the treaty, and all the pushback and complaints can be subtly directed towards Māori.

              I can foresee a problem with this. Anyone that denies it, is unaware of human nature, and how it deals with unrequested change.

              We know that very few Māori have the power to influence change though, although many will likely feel the brunt of any resentment that comes from change that is viewed as Māori oriented, with reluctant government compliance. I've seen that happen before, and don't think there is anything stopping it occurring again.

              Māori representatives are aware of the power they hold on behalf of people they don't even communicate with, and even if they did, they would likely ignore them the same way that our political representatives pay attention to their constituents – which means sometimes when it suits, and other times not, when it doesn't.

              One of the factors that is ignored, is that Māori have through personal relationships, thoroughly integrated with the peoples that followed after. Within every Māori person, iwi-affiliated or not, lives the colonised and the coloniser. There is an assumption each individual can be divided when it comes to whakapapa, and the remainder can be ignored as an add-on.

              The arrogance of assuming all Māori are represented by those who have all been educated and brought up to view history and current day in exactly the same way is astounding to me.

              Co-governance is a divisive idea, well past its best before date.

              It will serve the power brokers within the Māori community, give credence to the progressive politicians while masking their failures, and be welcomed by the environmentalists who couldn't get the traction they have been seeking for so long.

              There's more I would say, but I'm tired and heading off to bed.

              Might be more coherent later on.

              • RedLogix

                Only wish I could be this coherent at any time. Thanks yes

              • Shanreagh

                Though I think being able to link back to ones Iwi has changed for the better since 2000.

                From Molly's link talking of the 2006 census:

                Helpline are trying to make it easier for people to identify their iwi,[15] and the proportion who "don't know" dropped relative to previous censuses.

                I work sometimes to help people link to their land, thence to their Iwi etc and this work is increasing. (some Maori land records are in better shape than Iwi records though Iwi records have improved since groups have got together to put Treaty claims forward)

                Judging by my former husband's wider family it has been a sense of pride, now, to get on to the Tribal lists. Though they always knew where they came from but not how. Former husband is one of a group in Queensland who has done this.

                • Molly

                  The equivalent of ancestry.com and a valued and enjoyable occupation. Great for reinstating old, and building new connections. I've connected with an associated marae through such a project. It was a great weekend for all who attended.

                  Irrelevant to discussion at hand, though.

                  Unless you factor in the increased political leverage afforded to iwi by greater affiliation numbers…

                  A query on this point, would my affiliation with three iwi groups increase numbers for all three groups – effectively counting me three times?

                  That's a great multiplication tool at hand, if so.

                  • Shanreagh

                    The equivalent of ancestry.com and a valued and enjoyable occupation. Great for reinstating old, and building new connections. I've connected with an associated marae through such a project. It was a great weekend for all who attended.

                    Irrelevant to discussion at hand, though.

                    Not what I was talking about though.

                    You are making blanket statements about disaffection from ones marae/roots/etc.

                    I am saying that through a variety of means that connections are being made, if they are wanted to be made. There is a resistance among some Maori to providing info to perceived white sources, such as the rolls.

                    That is why I take with a grain of salt pronouncements about anything Maori based on who has enrolled/how many Maori are on on the Maori roll.

                    I am not one of the group you are lambasting about so-called Maori homogeneity, so-called 'Maori Elites'.

                    It was too difficult dealing with all the smaller hapu groupings, and as bigger entities, it was an administrative efficiency to be able to deal with fewer representatives that spoke for larger groups of people.

                    While this is true also important is to have a business, not a personal, entity to hold the proceeds of any Treaty claim so that the monies can be invested/dispersed etc to the widest extent.

                    I feel that you may have been captured to some extent by talk of an Iwi elite. I am still seeing notices for Hui a Iwi, Hui a Hapu, Panui for Incorporation meetings, groups to discuss reps to follow up on treaty claims in many of the small community papers, as well as the Dailies, I read as attempts these reach out in multiple ways to make contact, there are often noticeboards on some of the Maori-owned radio stations.

                    • Molly

                      "I feel that you may have been captured to some extent by talk of an Iwi elite."

                      You may feel it, but you would be incorrect.

                      I have a perspective that differs from your own, and just as I haven't widened yours, you haven't provided pertinent information to make me change mine.

                      Such is life.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      "I have a perspective that differs from your own, and just as I haven't widened yours, you haven't provided pertinent information to make me change mine."

                      Therin lies the rub!

                      (Perhaps some casual reader might have adjusted their opinion from reading the debate – not very likely though, it seems).

              • Robert Guyton

                "Environmentalists hark back to the halcyon days of pre-European plenty, and have found a way to utilise Māori as a treaty partner to bring about the change they want."

                Those devious environmentalists! Curse their black hearts!!

                "Te Ao Māori cannot be denied, otherwise it is racist"

                Is there a reason other than racism to deny "Te Ao Māori"?

                Keen to hear what you believe that may be!

                "… so let's protect the land and the water and call it honouring the treaty…"

                A plan so cunning, you could pin a waero on it and call it a wīhara!

                And what a bonus! Environmentalists, duplicitous and exploitive, can sit back, sipping their puha smoothies, secure and smug in the knowledge that "all the pushback and complaints can be subtly directed towards Māori."

                "I can foresee a problem with this. Anyone that denies it, is unaware of human nature, and how it deals with unrequested change."

                Unrequested? Protecting the land and water is … unrequested?

                Who knew???

                • Molly

                  "…is unaware of human nature, and how it deals with unrequested change"

                  Emphasis mine, which as you can see, is different from yours.

                  (Still recovering from a late start and early morning, so I will limit my reply (as you are wont to do) to a low hanging fruit, and not the tree.)

              • Robert Guyton

                "It will serve the power brokers within the Māori community"

                You mean the same way governance presently serves the power brokers within the Pakeha community?

                "… give credence to the progressive politicians while masking their failures.."

                The present progressive politicians will gain credence? "Credence means truthfulness, or believability." This is somehow a bad thing? How might that "mask" their "failures"?

                "…and be welcomed by the environmentalists who couldn't get the traction they have been seeking for so long."

                Mustn't give environmentalists traction…

                • Molly

                  Credence is the wrong word. Camouflage would have been accurate.

                  Still tired. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

                  Believe it or not – I'm someone who supports the long overdue needed consideration to be given to the environment, in legislation and policy.

                  I consider this is best done by explaining why and how. Not doing the equivalent of standing next to someone else and persuading others by saying "listen to them".

                  I know you see this differently. But I consider people have circles of influence that is related to personal and individual relationships. Māori representatives speaking on behalf of the environment will be more likely to have long-term and sustained influence on those already within their circle of influence, who appreciate the Te Ao Māori conservationist view and can engage fully in methodology and solution building. Those who desire the same outcomes, but have no affiliation with either Māori or knowledge of Te Ao Māori, are best served by persuasive arguments from those into whose circles they already are in.

                  My point is, redirecting environmental questions and focus to the domain of Te Ao Māori, instead of dealing straightforwardly with it, is disrespectful to the questioners and to Māori as well. It should not be politically expedient to defer in such a way that it appears they carry the burden alone.

                  The environmental movement at the moment seems preoccupied with issues other than the environment. I don't think that is entirely true, but in terms of media exposure, it is what is transmitted to the public at large and not contradicted in any way.

                  • Robert Guyton

                    Thanks for your reply, Molly. I believe I can see your position clearly. I am aware of how Pakeha environmentalists could appear to, and in some cases, be, acting in that way (I presume by "environmentalists", you meant the non-Māori ones?).

                    "Those who desire the same outcomes, but have no affiliation with either Māori or knowledge of Te Ao Māori, are best served by persuasive arguments from those into whose circles they already are in."

                    Don't bother their pretty little heads with all that Māori mumbo-jumbo, it'll only provoke them, you mean?

                    Surely those who desire the same environmental outcomes as Māori, have an affinity with Māori and Te Ao Māori? Perhaps that could be made more clear for them. They may be delighted to learn they share aspects of a world view they've assumed they were seperate from.

                    "My point is, redirecting environmental questions and focus to the domain of Te Ao Māori, instead of dealing straightforwardly with it, is disrespectful to the questioners and to Māori as well. It should not be politically expedient to defer in such a way that it appears they carry the burden alone."

                    Environmental questions aren't, imo, being redirected solely to the domain of Te Ao Māori, but that "lens" is being offered to augment the one they are more familiar with. I know that your fear of a backlash is shared by manawhenua in rohe outside of your own – it's a long-experienced phenomenon, but those I know well believe that desperate times require desperate measures, and are fronting-up.

                    Lastly, those who you describe as having "no affiliation with either Māori or knowledge of Te Ao Māori" have already been served some tough gruel to chew on, in the form of Te Mana o te Wai, which has passed the legal hurdles and must now be faced, at the regional council level especially. I've watched some who "have no affiliation with either Māori or knowledge of Te Ao Māori" come to terms, somewhat groggily, with this, then convey to their less-well-prepared communities the new reality around water management. It has already happened; e rere atu ana te hoiho na!
                    Edit: I have to ask, what do you mean by,
                    “dealing straightforwardly with it” with regards environmental issues? Do you me that good ol’ Western science and technology kind of straight?

                    • Molly

                      "Don't bother their pretty little heads with all that Māori mumbo-jumbo, it'll only provoke them, you mean?"

                      No.

                      I mean that personal relationships make transitional change easier to understand and adopt. It's not about the appreciation of Māori or non-Māori perspectives at all. It is about how we create and build sustained change. I think existing relationships are the best starting point.

                      "Surely those who desire the same environmental outcomes as Māori, have an affinity with Māori and Te Ao Māori? Perhaps that could be made more clear for them. They may be delighted to learn they share aspects of a world view they've assumed they were seperate from."

                      That would be a great outcome, as contacts and networks are built, but once again, it is not a good starting point.

                      " I know that your fear of a backlash is shared by manawhenua in rohe outside of your own – it's a long-experienced phenomenon, but those I know well believe that desperate times require desperate measures, and are fronting-up."

                      Well, I guess I agree with their perspective, and also think that there are many ways to front up. Not necessarily the one that continues blithely on by ignoring that knowledge of backlash.

                      The rest of your comment, I'll leave if you don't mind. It reiterates an assumed point of view I do not have, and I lack the will to address it again for your misunderstanding.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Thanks, Molly.

                      You say "starting point" and I wonder if you've missed that there has been a long history of addressing environmental issues. I don't feel we are at the starting point. Seems to me we are on the cusp of a mature approach where two cultures apply their knowledge in cooperation with each other.

                      Since colonisation, Māori have adopted a plethora of technologies and ways of thinking via the Western World. The reverse has not been the case, imo. Time to redress that balance, I believe. You can't yearn for something you have no perception of. Te Ao Māori offers a new perception that casts seemly mundane issue differently.

                      The problem with the "keep to your lanes" proposal presents when laws and rules are made that have to be complied with. Understanding what they mean and why they have been introduced empoweres everyone, bar the truculent.

                    • RedLogix

                      Since colonisation, Māori have adopted a plethora of technologies and ways of thinking via the Western World. The reverse has not been the case, imo.

                      I agree the transformation of Maori society, especially from a technology perspective has been most visible. And this is true globally – the post WW2 era has seen massive changes, mostly for the better, almost everywhere.

                      But six or seven generations of Pakeha interaction with Polynesia has left it's mark on us as well. We just tend to not be very aware of it – until that is you travel back to the UK or Europe and realise you ain't one of them anymore either.

                    • Molly

                      @Rober Guyton

                      I appreciate (not sarcasm) you repeating what you comprehend when reading my comments.

                      It makes it apparent I am not being understood and/or clear enough regarding my points.

                      I'll give it some thought.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      RedLogix – that's an interesting observation; could you give one example of that "mark" ?

                      And is a more reverential attitude toward water one of them?

                      It may be that folk overseas baulk at human sewerage disposal to water but I don't know if that's the case.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Thanks, Molly – in return I'll try harder with my reading comprehension. Perhaps keeping it simple, a singular idea to be discussed, might help?

                    • RedLogix

                      It may be that folk overseas baulk at human sewerage disposal to water but I don't know if that's the case.

                      A cultural prohibition on mixing human waste with water makes perfect sense when your pre-industrial population relies totally on surface water for its drinking supply. But this is not a sustainable strategy as population density increases – beyond a certain point industrial water treatment, both potable and waste, becomes necessary.

                      You can reasonably argue for alternate waste disposal methods, composting and electric incineration come to mind, but the system we have is flexible, effective and cost efficient. If Maori want to dismantle it on cultural grounds – they would need to propose something considerably better to justify the disruption. Details matter.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Sewerage – too big to fail!

                      So we must continue on, flushing, relying upon, trusting in, improved technologies, sensible political decision-making and a manageable population growth rate.

                      Tangaroa help us all!

                    • Muttonbird

                      The system we have now is certainly flexible, for polluters. It is effective, if you ignore burst pipes and mass poisoning events, and it is cost effective, when you don't invest in infrastructure.

                    • RedLogix

                      and a manageable population growth rate.

                      Fortunately global population everywhere except Africa is projected to peak and start falling this century. The idea that human beings breed indiscriminately like bacteria in a petrie dish is bunk. We respond to complex mix of social, economic and cultural cues when it comes to how many children we have.

                      As for NZ – on our current path we might get to about 6m by the end of this century. That seems manageable.

                    • RedLogix

                      The system we have now is certainly flexible, for polluters. It is effective, if you ignore burst pipes and mass poisoning events, and it is cost effective, when you don't invest in infrastructure.

                      Is that an argument to do a better job of the system we have, or to rip it up and revert to long drops?

                    • Molly

                      @Robert Guyton

                      Thanks for the advice.

                      There is a component that I am unable to amend, the response of the reader. There is a tendency for some replies on this issue to focus on selective extractions – and for underlying context to be ignored, or accompanying explanations to be ignored.

              • pat

                "Māori representatives are aware of the power they hold on behalf of people they don't even communicate with, and even if they did, they would likely ignore them the same way that our political representatives pay attention to their constituents – which means sometimes when it suits, and other times not, when it doesn't."

                This….it may be fair to observe that the 'elites' are unchanging irrespective of culture, ethnicity or time for that matter.

                • Robert Guyton

                  Indeed, although I believe that "we'll hui this with the rūnaka" is far more reliable than "we'll have a public meeting". Māori leaders of my acquaintance have rigorous processes for making decisions. Pakeha ones, not so much. Part of that is the history of the practices and the willingness of the participants to find an agreed position. Familiarity with the process and regularity of occurrence gives manawhenua a significant edge, in my opinion.

                  • pat

                    In your opinion

                  • RedLogix

                    Having experienced Maori social consultation first hand at a number of hui, and I might add in very authentic traditional settings, I will confirm there are many aspects to this other immigrants to this country could well learn much from. It is impressive when it goes well.

                    I long ago was inspired at the possible evolutionary pathway this nation could go down, if we were to look to the best that both European and Polynesian culture had to offer – and the spirit of universality and good will sought to evolve our political processes for the benefit of everyone. This would have to be a gradual, sophisticated conversation, that owed far more to future potential than past grievance.

                    Because the moment you made it a divisive zero sum game, all progress is lost.

              • Muttonbird

                A common practice among the Maori-phobic right and the right in general is to discourage collectivism in any and all forms.

                They recognise strength and determinism come from collectivism and that is why they seek to chip away at any attempts to consolidate. They promote division and discourage consensus as a way to keep political and cultural enemies weak.

                You can see it this week as the Kaipara Mayor surpasses a karakia.

                You can see it last week as David Farrar promotes the name Nu Tireni instead of Aotearoa.

                You can hear it any time David Seymour opens his stupid mouth.

                You can see it every day on this forum when some infer Maori are a disparate bunch of infighting savages who should not be encouraged to rebuild their language and culture. It's amazing those commenters pretend to be lefties at all…

                They seek to minimise Te Ao Maori, particularly, as a key plank in New Zealand's identity, in favour of a homogenised cup-a-soup where pinches of dried cultural seasoning from here and there are supposed to provide the flavour.

                • pat

                  You may not like it but almost half of Kiwis state they have no religion….perhaps he has a point.

                  https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/losing-our-religion/

                  I have no desire to be required to practice someone elses beliefs just as I will not impose mine on them

                  • Muttonbird

                    Karakia and prayer (done properly) are very powerful. They energise the spirit and concentrate the mind on the formal occasion. It's a shame you have not been witness to such, you are missing out.

                    I do not practise religious occasion regularly but when I do as a lay person, I am always impressed and leave with more than I came.

                    • pat

                      Perhaps so….somewhat like the Muslims in India who have been missing out on Hinduism

                    • pat

                      If the people of Kaipara are sufficiently ashamed of their Mayor they will vote him out next election….such is the benefit of democracy

                    • Muttonbird

                      The failing of democracy is that not everyone has the same vote.

                      There are many obstacles for some and our system does not address this discrepancy, therefore ability and intent to vote is heavily weighted to those who would see a racist like Jepson in the mayoral chains.

                  • solkta

                    Well he would if the karakia was a religeous one:

                    Kia hora te marino

                    Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana

                    Hei hurahi mā tātou I te rangi nei

                    Aroha atu, aroha mai

                    Tātou i a tātou katoa

                    (May peace be widespread, Many the sea be like greenstone; a pathway for all of us this day. Let us show respect for each other, for one another. Bind us all together).

                    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/479978/karakia-ban-should-be-reconsidered-race-relations-commissioner

                    I guess it was the being respectful and acting in good faith that the mayor had a problem with.

                    • pat

                      Fair point.

                    • Muttonbird

                      You are very gentle with your words, solkta.

                      For me, I believe the people of Kaipara should be ashamed of themselves for electing such an individual as mayor.

                    • RedLogix

                      Similar fine sentiments expressed in this karakia can be found in any of the major religions – but one of the important things western culture has discovered is the importance of separating of politics and faith.

                      I have no problem with any political person being personally informed by their inner faith, yet at the same time there is an obligation to respect the independent seeking of truth in others. No-one gets to impose their faith on anyone else; most especially not through a political process.

                      And while the reciting of this karakia is a pretty benign example, and indeed some people may well find it a good thing, it sets a precedent the Mayor in question might well want to push back on. What for example if another Councillor – a Christian, Muslim or Hindu – asked to start the meeting with a prayer from their scripture? How could he say no to that?

                    • Shanreagh

                      Or perhaps he subscribes to the view that a karakia is some sort of religious mumbo-jumbo. He seems surprisingly ignorant for someone coming from the Kaipara area with its large Moari population. So Solkta I agree with this

                      I guess it was the being respectful and acting in good faith that the mayor had a problem with.

                      RL
                      The karakia is not something from a ‘scripture’, what an odd thing to say.

                      ‘a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative. : something written.’
                      MerriamWebster

                      I look at in the way that if anyone want to express good wishes for upcoming deliberations it is no skin off my nose.

                    • RedLogix

                      A quick search on the term karakia clearly categorises them as a form of prayer:

                      https://www.otago.ac.nz/maori/world/te-reo-maori/karakia-prayers/index.html

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakia

                      https://teara.govt.nz/en/traditional-maori-religion-nga-karakia-a-te-maori/page-4

                      Nothing odd about describing them as a religious expression or scripture at all. That they might not have been traditionally written down owes more to Maori lack of a written language than the rather strained distinction you are trying to make.

                    • Muttonbird

                      @RL. I question your claim you have been participant in hui and/or other formal meetings between Maori and their guests. I think you are lying because if you had been present you would acknowledge tikanga Maori encourages a response.

                      Anywho, perhaps the gammon mayor felt his simple inaugural council meeting was not sufficiently important for formal occasion.

                      Way to play it down, Mr Mayor.

                      [you’ve been warned before about using the word gammon pejoratively and as a wind up. Maybe you don’t remember, so I will link below for you to read and have at think while you are on your 1 week ban. The ban btw is as much for continually wasting moderator time as anything else. At some point someone will get sick of the bullshit and ban you for a long time – weka]

                    • RedLogix

                      I question your claim you have been participant in hui and/or other formal meetings between Maori and their guests. I think you are lying because if you had been present you would acknowledge tikanga Maori encourages a response.

                      In a formal setting of a marae yes. I have happily done this more than a dozen times. The exchange can easily go on for more than an hour depending on how many speakers each side decides to offer – and sometimes there is a bit of game playing and one-upmanship involved.

                      But at the start of Council meeting is a different setting altogether, and one where allowing anybody present to respond however suited them – would break down the separation of politics and religion. And leave those aligned to no faith feeling very uncomfortable.

                      In one comment you have accused me of lying and used a blatantly racist term. All the while pretending to be defending karakia in good faith. Good for you that I gave away moderating a while back.

                    • Shanreagh

                      @Muttonbird

                      Re the white supremacist comment. Whether it is white supremacist or saying to hell with good manners, discretion & live and let live, I don't know. It is certainly shocking to me. When people say that a phrase

                      May peace be widespread, Many the sea be like greenstone; a pathway for all of us this day. Let us show respect for each other, for one another. Bind us all together)

                      is religious! Is it the ref to peace or respect that makes it religious? Or the imagery of discussions being smooth like a greenstone sea? Are we reaping the harvest of the calls for plain language so much that we call anything that is evocative or poetic, religious? Sad if so.

                      Down thread I pondered why in relation to the Three Waters 'stuff'

                      The only things I can think of are:

                      some got used to reading the 'river of filth' rubbish associated with Covid and the vaccines ie the Conspiracy Theories and are still using these sources or sources like them to mis- or dis- inform themselves about Three/Five Waters.

                      Or

                      perhaps they feel a frisson of excitement at being able to hold and print racist views now that the tolerance and discretion ‘buttons’ in our society seem to have broken.

                  • Robert Guyton

                    "If the people of Kaipara are sufficiently ashamed of their Mayor they will vote him out next election….such is the benefit of democracy"

                    Really? Endure that spiteful behaviour for 3 years???

                    Why??

                    Why not object, loudly and often, as is their right?

                    • RedLogix

                      And this is precisely why we keep politics and religion separate.

                    • pat

                      Is this the level of your debate in Council Robert?

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Our chair says the karakia.

                      Our excellent debates are sprinkled with kupu Māori.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      pat – I'm not seeking feedback, but just have to say, sincerely, that I don't get how my comments irritate you so much. Genuine puzzlement.

                    • pat

                      Not at all Robert, and goes some way to explaining local body election turnout.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Which I believe was higher than usual down here. I also received more votes than ever before.

                      Just odd!
                      (I may be wrong. I don’t take much notice off those details).

                    • Muttonbird

                      Hi pat. I suspect voter turnout is not so much driven by candidate behaviour but by the horrendous strain our profit driven economic system places on ordinary people.

                      You want us to slog and cook and fear and drive and parent and struggle and sleep and work and worry, and stand up to vote when a weird form comes to our 20th century letterbox?

                      Get fucked. Democracy is a sham.

                • Shanreagh

                  @ Robert

                  Paul Tapsell I think. Peter died in April 2012.

                  • Shanreagh

                    @ Rl

                    But looking at Solkta's example ( which I think is the KDC karakia previously used) could you pinpoint the religious part of it?

                    If I stood up at a public meeting and said in English

                    'I am hopeful that we will be working hard and with good humour to do the very best for our constituents'

                    would you still be calling it a prayer?

                    RL again
                    My comments have nothing to do with the lack of a written language. It is to do with classing the comments as a prayer and therefore religious. That is the part that I am ‘straining’ with

                    • RedLogix

                      Whether prayers use words specific to a given faith, or couched in more universal terms is scarcely relevant. Examples of both abound in all faiths – especially the more inclusive, non-fundamentalist ones.

                      The point is that a karakia is absolutely a Maori religious ritual. The question no-one wants to answer is why this particular religion should be privileged in this political setting above all others.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      A group of concerned citizens might like to book a speaking spot at every Kaipara meeting and begin their korero with a loooong karakia 🙂

                      Surely it's not the place of those supporting the continuation of the practice of saying karakia at the meetings to explain themselves, but the person who has stopped the practice??

                    • Robert Guyton

                      "The point is that a karakia is absolutely a Maori religious ritual"

                      Is it?

                      What if the opening words were modern, a poem, in Te Reo Māori?

                    • RedLogix

                      Would you be comfortable with a Council meeting starting with a looong recital of Mass in Latin? Or an Adhan call to prayer in Arabic? How about an hour or two of Tibetan chanting?

                      And yes – I provided three mainstream references above at 8:14pm that absolutely place karakia as a part of Maori religion. No ifs, no buts.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      "Would you be comfortable with a Council meeting starting with a looong recital of Mass in Latin?"

                      The Māori example has been in use for a long rime at the Kaipara council. Your what-ifs are facetious, ne ra?

                      In any case, the Tibetan chant appeals 🙂
                      Edit: “rime” was to be time, but I like it better.

                    • solkta

                      I'm keen on the Tibetin chanting as long as it comes with big beats.

                    • Muttonbird

                      Would you be comfortable with a Council meeting starting with a looong recital of Mass in Latin? Or an Adhan call to prayer in Arabic? How about an hour or two of Tibetan chanting?

                      And yes – I provided three mainstream references above at 8:14pm that absolutely place karakia as a part of Maori religion. No ifs, no buts.

                      This has to be the most desperate straw man I've seen on this forum. You are flailing, son. Good to see.

                      smiley

                    • Shanreagh

                      You have now gone much further than a critique of the words quoted by Solkta. You call them religious. You have a different concept of what is religious.

                      Would you be calling the below a prayer, what is the religion?

                      'I am hopeful that we will be working hard and with good humour to do the very best for our constituents'

                      What about if I said

                      'I am hopeful that we will be working hard and with good humour to do the very best for our constituents.

                      Then continued on

                      The whole root and core and brain of the people of Kaipara , on which and around which we were to build, and are to build, the great land of Kaipara in the later years of xxxxxx, seemed about to perish upon the field or to be led into an ignominious and starving captivity.'

                      and

                      linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, '

                      From Winston Churchill House of Commons speech 4/6/1940

                      https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1940-the-finest-hour/we-shall-fight-on-the-beaches/

                      Seems pretty 'flowery' and with the extended imagery showing how mild 'Many the sea be like greenstone; a pathway for all of us this day' is.

                      I find this karakia inoffensive. The image of the sea smooth like a piece of greenstone is very powerful.

                      No-one would call this image of a smooth untroubled sea being like the discussions to come as religious.

                      So
                      1 what religion would I be alluding to?
                      2 is it religious because it happens at the beginning of a meeting?
                      3 is it because it is in Maori?
                      4 What if it was in English, French, Thai or German or a language that some have fluency in?
                      5 is it because it uses ‘flowery’ or poetic language and NZers are just not into poetry (po eer tree) or that kind of speech?

                    • RedLogix

                      The Māori example has been in use for a long rime at the Kaipara council.

                      Just because something has been done for a rime time, does not mean it is forever. For example Parliament used to open with a specifically Christian prayer, but this govt quite reasonably changed it to a universal form not associated with any faith.

                      The point is that if you are going to call it karakia you are privileging Maori religion above others, in a society with a very wide range of faith convictions; or none at all. If those supporting the reciting of karakia were also vocally supporting the reciting prayers in a political context from Christian, Muslim or any of the rather long list of religious traditions I might be more persuaded. But all the years I have been here I have never seen this.

                    • RedLogix

                      This has to be the most desperate straw man I've seen on this forum.

                      It was merely a reasonable and equivalent response to Robert's suggestion that:

                      A group of concerned citizens might like to book a speaking spot at every Kaipara meeting and begin their korero with a loooong karakia

                    • RedLogix

                      You call them religious. You have a different concept of what is religious.

                      At 8:14pm I linked to three authoritative references describing karakia as part of Maori religion. You have notably failed to engage with them.

                      This kind of argument we are having is precisely why western systems strive to keep religion separate from politics as much as possible. It is hard enough to negotiate the conflict of economic and social interests – much less the quagmire of potentially competing faith systems.

                    • Muttonbird

                      This has to be the most desperate straw man I've seen on this forum.

                      It was merely a reasonable and equivalent response to Robert's suggestion that:

                      Yet in short time you have trivialised the people and practice of Maori, Catholicism, Islam, and Tibet.

                      It's all mumbo-jumbo to you and why don't we get down to the serious business of (secular?) local government without any colour at all.

                      It's the point I made before that the hard right seek to dismantle and minimise any and all cultural structure and reference (triggered particularly by Maori) in order to maintain western value dominance over societal processes.

                      That is white supremacism and should be called as such.

                    • Shanreagh

                      I find this arguing about karakia to be futile. If you have worked in a PS entity that has any kind of outreach into the Maori community these are part & parcel. We have been having karakia for literally years and years…….at least 30 in my case. We even worked up our own chant and waiata so as to be able to support our departmental speakers.

                      That was pretty dangerous wasn't it?

                      Every few years up pops some 'wally' like at Kaipara and says 'oi, oi what's this?' as if it is something new and dangerous AND religious. Did he prick himself with a thorn and fall into a deep sleep for a 1000 years.

                      When are we going to stop assigning pakeha religious values to something as inoffensive and beautifully phrased as

                      The image of the sea smooth like a piece of greenstone is very powerful.

                      No-one would call this image of a smooth untroubled sea being like the discussions to come as religious.

                    • Muttonbird

                      You'll never get an expat living in Pauline Hanson's Queensland by choice to sign up to that.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      RedLogix said:

                      "The point is that a karakia is absolutely a Maori religious ritual."

                      Which religion are you referring to, RedLogix?

                      Ratana?

                      Does it have a name, the way other religions do?

                    • weka []

                      a confusion between religion and spirituality. Do people really want the soul to have no place in politics? That would explain a lot.

                  • Robert Guyton

                    Oops! Covid brain.

                    • Shanreagh

                      The exchange can easily go on for more than an hour depending on how many speakers each side decides to offer

                      Just by this comment I am beginning to wonder at your familiarity.

                    • Shanreagh

                      @ MB 10.31pm

                      Yet my Maori ex husband is in Q'ld. 'good old Labor party voter' he calls himself, who is on the Ngapuhi roll with his children and grandchildren and proud of it. He would have been here as well, it is not just because he is in Aus. He says the level of racial distrust/othering (vis Pauline Hanson et al) there is hard to ignore, hard to distance yourself from it as it is so prevalent.

                    • RedLogix

                      Just by this comment I am beginning to wonder at your familiarity.

                      And by this comment I suspect you are unfamiliar of how a full and formal powhiri might go in a more traditional rural setting.

                      Again every single response has dismally failed to address the three references I made – as per the required practice here to back up claims of fact – that a karakia is definitively part of Maori religious practice. There is no wriggling out of this.

                      And that while I understand some here have gotten kind of accustomed to an otherwise benign and sometimes uplifting moment, your insistence that it must be mandatory, effectively entrenches Maori religious ritual as the State religion.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      In parsing…

                      "And that while I understand some here have gotten kind of accustomed to an otherwise benign and sometimes uplifting moment, your insistence that it must be mandatory,

                      (no one here has insisted it must be mandatory)

                      effectively entrenches Maori religious ritual as the State religion."

                      (Our "insistence" has had a mighty powerful and immediate effect!!!

                      What else, TS progressives, might we insist upon and entrench in a single evening!!)

                    • RedLogix

                      For the past day I have been repeatedly told the Kaipara mayor must allow karakia at the opening of Council meetings or otherwise he should be hounded out of office by angry voters. Your words.

                      Now you are telling me no – that it is not mandatory and a matter of choice. Now I am confused.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      My words! Good one, RedLogix.

                      I wouldn't invite the angry ones; they can wave placards outside. My crew would be polite and have strong, clear voices, a love for the reo and the poetry of karakia and a sense of theatre. Presentations from the public are an important part of the democratic process at the local body level. The public doesn't use the opportunity near often enough, imo.

                    • pat

                      "I wouldn't invite the angry ones; they can wave placards outside. My crew would be polite and have strong, clear voices, a love for the reo and the poetry of karakia and a sense of theatre. Presentations from the public are an important part of the democratic process at the local body level. The public doesn't use the opportunity near often enough, imo."

                      Somewhat akin to the event in Parliaments grounds recently where a group of citizens insisted that covid mandates be dropped?

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Well spotted, pat! My suggested crew sounds exactly like the pavement-chucking rabble that burned the playground at Parliament!

                    • Shanreagh

                      @weka 4/12/22 9.52am

                      Very good point Weka and bang on!

                      I wonder if those against karakia, or anything uplifting spoken in Maori spoken at the beginning of a meeting, are able to see and explore the difference between religion and spirituality?

                      Perhaps we will see a battle of the dictionaries arrayed at a 1000 paces.

                      To me it is a little like the saying from Oscar Wilde I heard against the excesses of neo liberalism

                      Oscar Wilde once said that "A fool is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"

                      from Lady Windermere's Fan.

                      I've seen 'fool' replaced by 'cynic' and 'price' by 'value'.

                      Back then I came across those who could not 'cotton on' to the point being made and suspect they would also be the ones to say religion and spirituality were the same. And, by extension if we apparently don't need one we will definitely not need the other.

                      Explored here in a short article from 2002

                      https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10765#:~:text=Oscar%20Wilde%20once%20said%20that,and%20the%20value%20of%20nothing%22.

                    • pat

                      "My suggested crew sounds exactly like the pavement-chucking rabble that burned the playground at Parliament!"

                      I am glad you agree Robert

              • tinderdry6

                "I was always told that the iwi groupings, were conceived and determined at the request of the Crown. It was too difficult dealing with all the smaller hapu groupings, and as bigger entities, it was an administrative efficiency to be able to deal with fewer representatives that spoke for larger groups of people."

                That's my understanding too. And it has caused real problems, particularly as iwi have been grouped into 'collectives', with outcomes across these collectives not always been equitable.

                • Shanreagh

                  Are you sure it is several Iwi and not large Hapu groups?
                  I think Auckland has areas where there are overlapping claimant groups.

                  Here is a link to the process
                  https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/treaty-of-waitangi/

                  Carwyn Jones AU comments
                  The next step is for the claimant community to give a mandate to representatives to advance the settlement of all historical claims of that community. Those representatives must be able to demonstrate to the Crown that they have been given such a mandate before the Crown will formally acknowledge that mandate. The Crown will not enter into negotiations with groups that do not have a recognised mandate, nor will the Crown enter into negotiations with groups that do not have any well-founded claims or do not constitute a ‘large natural group’.
                  https://www.thebigq.org/2020/01/14/what-is-the-treaty-of-waitangi-settlement-process/

                  and

                  ‘Once the Deed of Settlement is in a form that can be approved in principle, the mandated representatives and the Minister will initial a draft Deed of Settlement. The claimant community must then ratify the initial draft Deed of Settlement before the finalised Deed of Settlement is signed and settlement legislation is introduced in the final phase of ratification and implementation. Ratification is a crucial step in the settlement process because it can provide a fairly rigorous check on whether the broader claimant community approves of the settlement package that has been negotiated.

                  Once the settlement package has been agreed and the Deed of Settlement finally approved, various actions must then be taken to implement the settlement agreement. First, the claimant community, who can now be referred to as the ‘settling group’, must establish a Post-Settlement Governance Entity (commonly referred to as a ‘PSGE’) to receive and administer settlement assets on behalf of the community. ‘

                  • tinderdry6

                    "Are you sure it is several Iwi and not large Hapu groups?

                    The Tāmaki Collective is 13 iwi/hapu, grouped into 3 ropu.

                    "I think Auckland has areas where there are overlapping claimant groups."

                    Oh yes, and some are very uncomfortable bedfellows. The encroachment of the Marutūāhu ropu into Auckland, as an example, has been a significant issue. The lawyers are getting richer and richer.

          • Shanreagh 3.4.1.2.2

            First right of refusal clauses come about following a completed Treaty claim or one that has been signalled.

            The FRR is made to the treaty entity, not to any individual or corporate group. What is done with the land is up to the entity acting for and behalf of the wider group. The offer may be declined, purchased and kept or purchased and then sold and the funds going back to accounts of the entity.

            Are you saying that it is wrong for the treaty entity to be offered the land? How else are the proceeds/decisions about iwi land to be made? or do you think the land should be offered to individuals who are then able to use or sell and put the proceeds in their own pockets?

            The entity is have meetings and people can be voted on or off.

            Is this a wrong way to do this?

            • tinderdry6 3.4.1.2.2.1

              "The FRR is made to the treaty entity, not to any individual or corporate group."

              In the Tāmaki Collective, the FRR operates on a carousel. Of the 14 iwi participating, many cannot afford to participate. The wealthier iwi cut the poorer iwi out, and so the rich get richer. At the moment there are allegations of conflicts of interest being investigated involving the leader of a prominent iwi grouping within the collective who holds multiple potentially conflicting positions. As this is all that is in the public domain I'll leave it there.

              "Are you saying that it is wrong for the treaty entity to be offered the land?

              I'm opposed to wealthy 'corporate iwi elites getting wealthier by being able to exploit the FRR.

              • Shanreagh

                I continue to struggle with these 'Corporate iwi elites' comment. Are you saying that these are not the treaty entities set up to negotiate the claims on behalf of the iwi or the

                '……. Post-Settlement Governance Entity (commonly referred to as a ‘PSGE’) to receive and administer settlement assets on behalf of the community'

                but some other grouping?

                The info you are providing has a sort of Hobson's Choice/Brashian ring about them. Is there some new group, other than this lot putting 'poison' out?

                • tinderdry6

                  "Are you saying that these are not the treaty entities set up to negotiate the claims on behalf of the iwi or the"

                  1. The 'elites' are not entities at all. They are individuals who control resources across iwi, collective and ropu groupings, and use that control for their own advantage.
                  2. It is important to understand that not all iwi in Tāmaki have settled their treaty claims. The Collective redress is not a treaty settlement as such – no financial settlement was involved. Each iwi has its own process they are working through.
                  3. The Tāmaki Collective is not a happy union. There is open and public antipathy between iwi, and that has spilled over into court proceedings between iwi collectives, and accusations of conflicts of interest. And please don't tell me these are commercial differences only. The division amongst these groups runs deep.

                  At times I seriously wonder if governments have engineered this situation deliberately to divide and rule.

              • Shanreagh

                Of the 14 iwi participating, many cannot afford to participate. The wealthier iwi cut the poorer iwi out, and so the rich get richer.

                What happened to the settlement monies?

                Is this a Maori problem and being Pakeha looking in we may have got the wrong end of the stick?

                • tinderdry6

                  Not all of the iwi have settled their treaty claims.

                  • Shanreagh

                    RedLogix…

                    4 December 2022 at 12:00 am

                    So as Robert asked, I have asked but you have not answered

                    If we called it an introductory poem of best wishes or a welcome there would be no problems?

                    The problem arises for you is that it is called a karakia and you have tightly defined this as a religious aspect yet you are unable to advise what religion, what is the name etc. How beautiful. poetic words that have no religious connotation somehow become religious by their use at the beginning of a meeting.

                    Please do us the favour of letting us know exactly how these words fit into a religious connotation if on a meeting agenda they were called

                    Welcome/Introduction /poem of welcome

                    Kia hora te marino

                    Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana

                    Hei hurahi mā tātou I te rangi nei

                    Aroha atu, aroha mai

                    Tātou i a tātou katoa

                    (May peace be widespread, Many the sea be like greenstone; a pathway for all of us this day. Let us show respect for each other, for one another. Bind us all together).

                    Surely as a country we have been through this many times in the last 40 or so years. As I said over 30 years ago, when I got to a seniority able to go on marae or to be at meetings on topics of interest/concern to Maori (mostly land related) we have had a karakia.

                    At the time there was alot of blah, blah baloney about it being religious that was batted away.

                    What harm does a welcome with a wish for calm and peace in discussions do? How many times does this need to be rebutted?

                    I feel shocked, more truthfully dismayed/saddened actually, that yet again we have this red-neckery stuff bubbling away.

                    You are so, so wrong to surmise I have not had experience in rural marae protocols/procedures both from a work point of view going back 30 or so years, and a family point of view starting even before that.

                    Do you also kick up when you go to a home where they still say Grace? Do you see no need for this? What about families that still say a long Scottish grace in Scots English? Or a Robbie Burns/Walter Scott reading/poem as sometimes happened in my family? (this was used I see now to get a sense of calm from busy boy cousins just off the farm so they could eat and converse)

                    When you go for a meal on a marae are you seated and eating before any Grace or invocation/thanks is said?

                    • RedLogix

                      If we called it an introductory poem of best wishes or a welcome there would be no problems?

                      Not at all. And there are many perfectly fine forms it could take. Just not ones that are exclusively rooted in a singular religious tradition.

                      When you go for a meal on a marae are you seated and eating before any Grace or invocation/thanks is said?

                      Again perfectly fine – this example would be a social context not a political one.

                      You seem to be labouring under the impression that I regard karakia as superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Quite the opposite, it is because I respect and regard religious matters very seriously that I am so emphatic on the secular separation of religion and politics.

                      At the time there was alot of blah, blah baloney about it being religious that was batted away.

                      Yet I have given three authoritative references clearly stating that it is. Maori religious belief might not be formalised into church-like institutions as westerners might recognise them, but to suggest karakia are not religious in nature is to trivialise their nature and purpose.

                      They are way more than just a nice poem or uplifting sentiment.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      I'm sure the "gammon mayor" (hat-tip Muttonbird) duly considered all of these salient points before making his decision to curtail the established practice in the council chamber. His rationale will be available somewhere…if only we could find it…

                    • RedLogix

                      If all you have are blatant racist slurs – I will not be responding to you again in this post.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Jepson said councillors were there to do business and specific religions or cultures should not be included in meetings.

                      Will he also ban the wearing of hei tiki, the raising of eyebrows in greeting, use of "kiaora", "morena" or "tautoko"?

                      How will he be able to refer to the Te mana o te wai legislation?

                      Will he ban the option of speaking the councillors' pledge in te reo?

                      Kēne o noke.
                      Edit: will he also ban the provision of a bible upon which many councillors place their hand when making their pledge?
                      Will he ask Christian councillors to remove and jewellery that depicts a cross?
                      Will be ban this year Christmas party??

                    • Shanreagh

                      If all you have are blatant racist slurs – I will not be responding to you again in this post.

                      @RL 11.27am

                      You don't say who/where the racist slurs are but as the post falls under my reply I take it that it is a response to me.

                      Rereading I cannot see any racist slurs in my writing.

                      You should clarify asap preferably who it is you are accusing of racist slurs.

                      Seen your response.
                      Gammon is not racist.
                      Gammon is a a cut of pork and while it is not especially flattering to comment on size it is not racist, portly may have been better. .
                      No more unflattering than to comment on the PM’s diction, smile or Luxon’s bald head.

                    • RedLogix

                      @Shanreagh

                      It was directed at Robert:

                      I'm sure the "gammon mayor" (hat-tip Muttonbird)

                      Apologies for the lack of clarity.

                    • RedLogix

                      Gammon is not racist.

                      It absolutely is; every bit as describing a Pacific Islander as a 'coconut', or an Indian a 'curry muncher'. It is a reference to skin colour and class always carries the intent of a slur.

                      Gammon. Of all the barbs and insults of the ever-more intemperate culture war, this is surely the most dehumanising. This ‘meaty slur’, as the Independent describes it, robs its targets of any semblance of humanity.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Gammon?

                      No, you've misunderstood, perhaps intentionally. When the term was used last night, I looked it up. When used as an insult:

                      "Gammon is a pejorative popularised in British political culture since around 2012. The term refers in particular to the colour of a person's flushed face when expressing their strong opinions, as compared to the type of pork of the same name.

                      In any case, my (rare) use of such words, means that your rider, "If all you have…" means there's no problem. I have much more than that.

                    • weka []

                      while I disagree with Red’s analysis on this, I cannot see how the word gammon works here as anything other than a slur designed to inflame (Muttonbird’s usage). I also don’t see the relevance in this context given the word has a specific British usage that is attached to classist perspectives. Plenty of other words we can be using if one wants to make a hard point.

                    • RedLogix

                      @Robert

                      It manages to be all at once:

                      Racist because it always refers to white people

                      Ageist because in the original UK context it was always aimed at middle aged or older people

                      Sexist because it always refers to men

                      And most of all it is an expression of class hatred from the university educated, managerial, virtue signaling graduate and professional class left who believe they are the sole arbiters of morality.

                      This is where Brexit truly crashed against the pretensions of the modern radical left. These pseudo-revolutionaries hide behind Marx memes and t-shirts declaring ‘I am literally a communist’, but Brexit exposed their deep disdain for acts of working-class agency. Because such agency threatens to disrupt the expertise and virtue that the graduate and professional left believe they must bring to bear upon the life of the nation and its inhabitants. This was the profound contradiction at the heart of Corbynism: it publicly professed its radicalism but it was heavily invested in the demobilisation of working-class power in order to preserve the social influences of the academic, professional left. ‘Gammon’ was their screech of rage against a newly confident and expressive working class.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Agreed, weka. It was a very poor choice of words. I'll not use it again. Certainly, I can ill-afford to criticise anyone else's appearance.

                    • RedLogix

                      @Robert

                      Appreciated – and accepted.

                    • Shanreagh

                      In view of the choice you have made not to reply to Robert because of his use of an unknown to me slur I am asking for your views on the points that Robert raised

                      Jepson said councillors were there to do business and specific religions or cultures should not be included in meetings.

                      Will he also ban the wearing of hei tiki, the raising of eyebrows in greeting, use of "kiaora", "morena" or "tautoko"?

                      How will he be able to refer to the Te mana o te wai legislation?

                      Will he ban the option of speaking the councillors' pledge in te reo?

                      Kēne o noke.
                      Edit: will he also ban the provision of a bible upon which many councillors place their hand when making their pledge?
                      Will he ask Christian councillors to remove and jewellery that depicts a cross?
                      Will be ban this year Christmas party??

                      Despite your singular focus on karakia I am hoping you will see that we cannot ban karakia while at the same time allow displays of a religion. I believe that in view of the fact that we are a secular society Bibles and the such have no place and affirmations should be all that is offered.

                      Do you agree?

                      If not why not?

                      And how will concepts included in the draft legislation such as Te Mana o te Wai be referred to. especially given that the definitions have a certain sense of spirituality similar to the beautiful secular words used in the karakia put forward by Solkta.

                      NB I do not accept your glib assertion that if you have something said in the spot where there would traditionally be a karakia for welcome and thoughts for future goodwill in discussions it is overtly religious. I don't accept your keeping karakia pure argument. It is a strawman argument. It also calls what is spiritual a form of religion. (thanks again to Weka)

                    • RedLogix

                      @ Shanreagh

                      The difference between someone wearing or displaying a religious symbol and the reciting of karakia, is that one is matter of personal choice – the other has become a mandatory part of the meeting.

                      Weka raised a decent point. It is useful to think of spirituality as a matter of personal, individual faith and conviction. Religion is then the extension of that into the wider culture and community. And temples, churches and mosques and the like, as the formalisation of religion as institution. These three ideas exist on a continuum – not in contradiction or contrast with each other.

                      So whether you want to portray karakia as a spiritual, religious or institutional practice matters little to the debate of whether New Zealand should be heading down the path of state entrenching one specific religious tradition into our political system.

                      Personally I am wide open to however any Council chooses to start it's meetings – two hours of meditative Tibetean chanting or a few moments of karakia. Or nothing at all. But it must remain a matter of choice.

                    • Shanreagh

                      @ RL.

                      You have not commented on the Bible being featured in Council meetings. This to me is an overt religious symbol and should not be there. Or is that Ok because it is/was the religion of the colonisers?

                      An oath may be administered and taken in any of the manners following: (a) The person taking the oath may, while holding in his hand a copy of the Bible, New Testament, or Old Testament, repeat the words of the oath as prescribed or allowed by law;

                      https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1957/0088/latest/whole.html

                      or

                      The registrar or court crier does this in the courtroom or from the court to the remote site using video conferencing. To swear an oath, the person must have the Bible with them. No Bible is needed if the person makes an affirmation.

                      https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/going-to-court/without-a-lawyer/representing-yourself-civil-high-court/what-to-expect-in-the-courtroom/

                      Would you support the Councillors being able to say the pledge in Te Reo or even sign language…..both being official languages here.

                      It seems to have been an arbitrary decision made on possibly the ground of ignorance the Mayor is going to find himself in a real pickle (if he allows Christian symbols) as he tries to find a way through this while endeavouring to bring leadership to the Council and the region.
                      My supposition is that it is ignorance as he now says he is indigenous (?)

                      Hopefully he will take on board both Hon Mahuta’s (Council’s set their own procedures) and the view of HRC

                    • RedLogix

                      Correct me if I am wrong but swearing on the Bible appears optional and a matter of choice. Alternatives such as affirmations exist for those who choose not to use the Bible.

                      I think I have made my argument clearly and in detail, and I will wind up my contribution here.

                      Appreciate that we could debate this constructively.

                    • Shanreagh

                      @RL To clarify as you don't seem to read my contributions very thoroughly…….and I thought we were debating this constructively not could have been .crying

                      Yes the Bible is optional but I do not think it should be. It is a relic of a religion and religion of any kind has no place in public life.

                      There should be no option at all.

                      Affirmations only.

      • Robert Guyton 3.4.2

        The use of the phrase, "hit the nail squarely on the head", seen increasingly here on TS and used by just a small cabal of commenters, is revelatory, imo.

        • Incognito 3.4.2.1

          It is the secret handshake!

          • Shanreagh 3.4.2.1.1

            The Iwi Elites use a secret handshake to hit the nail squarely on the head? While they're doing al this what is happening to 3/5 Waters?

            …….Asking for a friend.

        • swordfish 3.4.2.2

          .

          The use of the phrase, “hit the nail squarely on the head”, seen increasingly here on TS and used by just a small cabal of commenters, is revelatory, imo.

          Yes … but bear in mind that your opinions are very, very silly … as you might expect from an ageing hippy fantasist with extremely self-indulgent tendencies.

          • weka 3.4.2.2.1

            think it’s probably time to reign in the person stuff a bit swordfish.

            • swordfish 3.4.2.2.1.1

              .

              Yep … that's fair enough … I've realised in the last few days that I've been moving into troll territory over recent weeks (so was expecting a mod note at some point) …

              … and, to continue the self-critique, I've also been indulging a little too much in grandiose rhetorical displays on the hypocrisies, cowardice & social-detachment of our upper-middle Woke chums that so massively irritate me – rather than making substantive arguments around the nitty gritty substance of specific issues like the topic of this post … Redlogix, Pat & others here have done the heavy lifting in terms of the latter &, in the process, put my flimsy contributions to shame… so, overall I think it's a fair cop … I'll stick to making more substantive & less pejorative arguments from now on, health & time permitting.

              • Robert Guyton

                Yes, but bear in mind, I'm provoking you sorely by my very existence.

                Someone's got to bring me down to earth 🙂

              • weka

                nice one swordfish. Look forward to hearing your more substantive arguments when that works out for you.

              • Anker

                I have to say, I for one will miss your eloquent depictions of the Professional Managerial Class, their narcissm and their associated elites (including Iwi). But perhaps the moderation is only about when you describe people on this site in that way?

                • Robert Guyton

                  Swordfish hasn't been moderated, he's been politely prompted.

                  Your yearning for repeated attacks upon an ill-defined class of people you don't like is curious. Should we ramp up our demeaning of non-Labour and Green voters here's a matter of course, using pejorative terms with reckless abandon, hyperbolically and eloquently demeaning 'that lot" and any individual commenting here we believe might be "one of them", devoting entire comments to that end and neglecting to make any salient points, interesting observations or positive suggestions in the process?

                  Interested to hear more from you, anger, about your proposal.
                  Edit: Oops! “Anger” was an auto-correct I missed, but perhaps I’ll let it stand…

                • Shanreagh

                  Anker, Swordfish won't clarify but could you please indicate who these 'Iwi Elites' are. You have mentioned them so presumably you know who they are?

                  Is the phrase Iwi Elites referred to somewhere?

                  Thanks

                • weka

                  I just asked the personal stuff to stop. Swordfish is still free to talk about the politics of modern life.

                  Hope you are taking care Anker, and finding less aggravating things to engage with while you are recovering.

                  • Anker

                    Thanks Weka. I didn't want to go against moderation, but I was confident that it was only the personal stuff you were moderating otherwise I wouldn't have said that!

                    Thanks for your good wishing Weka. Got another appointment to see GP.

                    I find the Standard good, because I can casually scroll, whereas concentrating too deeply a little challenging! But more peaceful activities could be indicated!

                    • Anne

                      Hope you make a full recovery Anker.

                      As one long term commenter to another, I sometimes disagree with you but you have shown yourself to be a genuine person. I respect you for that.

  4. Poission 4

    There’s over 30,000 water-infected people who can easily attest to this anyway.

    Thats a bullshit number,similar to the depreciation number ( billions over next 30 years) over plucked out of someones fat arse.

    The number is less then one weeks covid infections at present,which tends to put people in hospital (stressing all services) changing both the rates of death,but the life expectancy.It has even changed the rate of increase in NZ super payments,decreasing from forecasts (which I have never seen b4).

    The 77 million for training in co governance was taken from the covid remergence response fund.

    • As a person who has suffered water borne disease twice in NZ, I can attest it is horrible.

      My Dr told me we count the notifiable cases, but there are far more not counted.

      That number, 30 000 is probably quite conservative.

      • Poission 4.1.1

        What water borne diseases were those?

        • Giardia, a waterborne parasite which may infect people and animals. It is the most common cause of stomach upsets in the young old and those with immunity problems. It is notifiable. Mine was from a small separate water supply which was not treated.
          The illness caused goes in cycles of 2 to 3 weeks of pains diarrhoea and cysts. The treatment is two spaced sets of pills. Horrible to take lol.

      • Graeme 4.1.2

        I'll let Ad put up a source for the 30,000 number, I've seen it from many sources calculated in different ways. And it is unquestionably very conservative.

        Add up the population of Havelock North (15,000) and then put in all the local boil notices that would have been in force around the country and you'll easily get over 30,000.

        In 2012 Massey University Public Health put the figure at 3% of the population for e. coli non-compliance (that's around 150,000 people), and 21% for protozoal non-compliance, that's just over 1 million potentially very upset tummys and bottoms.

    • Ad 4.2

      Arse indeed.

      The early 2006 study:

      water-borne-disease-burden-prelim-report-feb07.doc (live.com)

      Can't help but cite the 2017 outbreak that infected one third of the population of Havelock North:

      Update: New Zealand’s Largest Drinking Water Outbreak – Water Quality and Health Council (waterandhealth.org)

      Annual burden of water-borne infections broken out again here:

      Table A2: Estimates of the annual background burden of water-borne disease in New Zealand | Ministry for the Environment

      Fact sheet one:

      EHINZ

      All the notifiable diseases, broken out. You can do the aggregation but it's consistent:

      Notifiable diseases in New Zealand: Annual Report 2019 (esr.cri.nz)

      And of course a history of New Zealand's water-borne major outbreaks here:

      Appendix 2: Outbreaks of Water-borne Disease in New Zealand | Ministry for the Environment

      • Poission 4.2.1

        Most of those are also food poisoning events,mostly caused by undercooked food,or eating raw vegetables (as c bacter is a gut bacteria of birds)

        There was also in increase over the covid period due to people not washing their hands after using sanitizers b4 handling food ,similar effects to water or food illness.

        Extrapolated models of risk using US and European data LOL.confirming suspicions.

        At present around 100 additional people are dying in NZ per week ( excess deaths above precovid baseline) i doubt any (excluding drownings) are water borne.

        • Whataboutism at best. “Most of those…

          We are sick with our water borne water living bugs and parasites and other contaminants.

          Many "food" borne illnesses are because carrots lettuce and berries etc. have been "washed" in contaminated water.

          Often animals are living too close to water sources on large commercial farms.

          Nobody mentioned death.. just you making a strange comparison there. Are you saying Drs do not count notifiable diseases correctly?

    • Incognito 4.3

      The figure of 30,000 is an estimate but hardly one coming from someone’s skinny sphincter and definitely not of the same order as a Joyce number.

      In 2020, 40,000 Kiwis had to boil their tap water, so it was drinkable. More than 100 wastewater treatment plants are in breach of consents, with a third of wastewater treatment plants needing to be reconsented by 2024. 2020 also saw New Zealand’s wastewater systems overflowing or blocking more than 3,000 times.

      And every year, 35,000 New Zealanders get sick from water that doesn’t meet international standards for clean drinking water.

      https://www.lgnz.co.nz/reforms/three-waters/

      The aboutery in your comment is odd and misguided. You seem to be arguing that because something is not as bad as Covid-19 we should (safely?) ignore it. Cancer stats are worse than Covid-19 in NZ, so would you apply your ‘logic’ to that comparison as well?

      • Poission 4.3.1

        The 30k figure is a trojan number,like using the value of the 3w assets depreciation going forward (30-40yr) to extrapolate a big number that we need saving from,or imparting a large number to confuse people into thinking their power bill keeps rising.

        The aboutery is comparative analysis and you use it to offset in a risk off model to test (as markov assumptions are independent ) to ascertain value.The same models you can use to say there will be no efficiency or saving by doubling the number of heads at a table,when none of them can connect a pipe,or dig a ditch.

        • Incognito 4.3.1.1

          You’re simply repeating the same assertion with some techno lingo thrown in for good measure, which only serves to confuse and put off people who are trying to understand what you’re trying to say here on this forum. Your ‘analogies’ are distractions, at best.

          You failed at the first couple of hurdles of constructive criticism, which are pointing out the issue and then showing a better alternative (solution) or, in this case, better data estimates be they reported actual data or from modelling.

          For example, in 2021 there were about 1,000 notifications of Giardiasis in NZ and about 700 cases of Cryptosporidiosis, which both are notifiable diseases. This is most likely caused by taking in contaminated water, not necessarily but usually drinking-water. Besides under-reporting, as with Covid-19, it seems highly plausible that there are many more New Zealanders having non-notifiable disease from absorbing contaminated water each year, which is further supported by the non-compliance stats (cf. @ 4.1.2.1; https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/#comment-1923773).

          • Poission 4.3.1.1.1

            How were the numbers ascertained and how was the attribution gained and the methodology used to provide the number,the only models I see were provided by Ad using CDC data to extrapolate.

            Show me the model.

            • Incognito 4.3.1.1.1.1

              As far as I can quickly ascertain all estimates are based on actual NZ data:

              Based on currently available data, estimates of the burden of endemic drinking-waterborne gastro-intestinal disease are of the order of ca. 18,000 and 34,000 cases per annum. Preliminary results from work in progress suggest that this is an underestimate.

              https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/water-borne-disease-burden-prelim-report-feb07-v2.pdf [Estimation Of The Burden Of Water-Borne Disease In New Zealand: Preliminary Report; November 2006]

              Now, can you return the favour and give us your more accurate estimate?

              • Poission

                Not 36000 from catchments using treated potable supplies.( C.bacter is very sensitive to chl.)

                As the paper concludes the risk of drinking untreated water in an avian environment is high.The risk is greatest with roof tanks,although sensitivity lessens with exposure over time in community's from immunity ( not good for visitors etc) although not quantified due to an absence of data.Essentially the areas with greatest risks are rural without treatment or monitoring.Larger areas due to error (of which most is monitoring errors in compliance) missed testing etc

                The modelling is montecarlo so should have provided both the spread of the ensemble (to enable best fit) so there is a wide spread with no error bounds or closure( it is very coarse) and sensitive to error in extrapolating from semi rural to metropolitan ( the error will propogate exponentially)

                • Incognito

                  How many readers on this site do you think can parse this:

                  ( C.bacter is very sensitive to chl.)

                  Your last paragraph will be gobbledygook to most too:

                  The modelling is montecarlo so should have provided both the spread of the ensemble (to enable best fit) so there is a wide spread with no error bounds or closure( it is very coarse) and sensitive to error in extrapolating from semi rural to metropolitan ( the error will propogate exponentially)

                  Anywho, I’m still waiting for your best estimate of the number of water-infected people in NZ each year. Show us your numbers and model.

                  • Poission

                    Campylobacter which is used in the link paper YOU provided is very sensitive to chlorine,(and UV) which is what the paper YOU provided stated.(did you even read it?)

                    The model used in the paper was a montecarlo (read casino) model that did not show the ensembles that are used for the probalistic outcomes .The spread was 18-34000 using two different outcomes,which may be under or over estimated depending on how you calculate the standard error which is NOT shown.

                    No where is there any coherent data available, ( that I have seen) as any model being dynamic is sensitive to initial conditions.Which is why if you read the paper questions are legitimate and the problems are open,and the solutions for the Rural locations at risk are dooable without empire building,

                    now if you can answer my question on how it will be funded,that would be very nice thankyou.

                    The only thing that we can model is the economic costs of services for 3W which will increase due to duplication of governance. Here the disease is well known and the foremost problem with government services.

                    .https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/#comment-1923939

                    • RedLogix

                      As the only person here who has actually had anything to do with operating a major city water supply I want to thank you for persisting with the truth here.

                      The large city potable water supplies are world class. They are strictly monitored and tested on a daily basis. In essence we measure three independent variables, pH, Turbidity and Free Chlorine. If the pH is in the range 6.8 – 7.4, the Turbidity is less than 0.5 NTU and the Chlorine is in the range 0.4 – 2.0 ppm we absolutely know it is safe to drink. These are all continuously monitored (typically faster than one record per 30sec) at the end points of all major feed lines. This data is transmitted and stored in secure, central database and is carefully analysed for any anomalies 24hrs per day. Any deviation outside the above limits will raise an alarm with operational staff 24hrs who will investigate the cause immediately. In reality such events we very rare.

                      And this is just the basic layer of protection – I could go on to fill pages more of comment. 80% or so of NZs population is covered by this exceedingly good standard of potable water supply. The idea that it is incompetently run, in a state of crisis and causing mass illness is manifest bullshit.

                      Like I spent almost a decade of my life designing, building, testing and operating the software that runs these systems – if anyone else here has better inside knowledge than this I have yet to hear from them.

                    • Incognito

                      To clarify your persistent confusion and contrary to common belief, you are not having a one-on-one conversation with me, your/our audience is the much larger group of largely silent readers of TS.

                      Thus, the onus is on you, me, and each and every commenter to be clear, concise, and articulate and explain what they mean in layman language.

                      To be more precise, the spread of the two independent estimates was 18,000 – 34,000 cases each year.

                      No where is there any coherent data available …

                      This is misleading and you need to explain what you mean by “coherent data” to a lay-audience.

                      I’ve already answered your last question to my best ability here: https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/#comment-1923940.

                    • Poission

                      RL

                      I am at present more concerned with the economic risks which are unquantified at present,where it is highly likely we will be lumbered with a very expensive outcome going forward .Expense comes with greater costs to the poor and those with limited incomes,and getting chucked a bone from High table does not alleviate the problem.

                      If someone could provide me with a sound economic argument,that costs would reduce in real terms,there would be better outcomes etc,They would have my full support,yet to see it,

                      I agree that most metros are well provided with good potable supply,a lot of it well independently monitored by the NZFSA.

                    • Tinderdry6 []

                      Yep, that’s where I’m coming from too. This sets out some of the issues. https://castalia-advisors.com/five-big-problems-with-three-waters/

                    • RedLogix

                      @Poisson

                      I agree with your focus on the economic argument. The Bulk Water Supply Division of GWRC used to operate and maintain the entire potable water supply for Greater Wellington with just 50 staff. This included management, asset planners, control and operations, and maintenance. It was in my view a lean, well run entity and if a similar model under effective leadership was replicated nationally we would have little to worry about.

                      But what I am seeing is these new 3W entities are already growing out into worryingly bloated and expensive entities. Before they even have legislative backing even. And as you say it is not at all clear who will fund them, and on what terms.

                    • Poission

                      RL

                      Was that when the RWC was in the Hutt? I did some work there for them and WCC on flow data,and with the latter on the large flows at Moa point through the waste system during rain events.

                      Very small crews,even with WCC prior to the seperation of service and delivery.

                      There is already a blowout in the budget here of 9 billion in the first 3 months (post budget) and with interest rates increasing it does not look good going forward for debt funded ventures.

                    • RedLogix

                      Yes. That was the period up until 2014 (before the formation of Wellington Water) when the Regional Council owned and operated Te Marua, Waterloo, Gear Island and Wainuiomata WTPs, the bulk pipelines, 20 large pump stations and filled 50 odd reservoirs in each of Upper and Lower Hutt, Porirua and Wellington cities.

                      The main office was at Waterloo.

                      From there each City ran its own retail distribution. And as I mentioned above, Wellington City was obviously to us – the odd man out – underfunded and weakly staffed.

                      All this was amalgamated in 2014 into Wellington Water, along with the sewerage and stormwater systems for all four cities. I have no comment to make on this newer, larger entity – I have not heard anything especially good or bad about them even though I do stay in intermittent contact. But in principle I thought it a good idea and I get the sense WW is doing a reasonable job given the unfortunate legacy of problems it inherited specifically from Wellington City.

                    • Poission

                      RL

                      I think Wellington problems,came from moving from there core business to focus on promoting the entertainment industries,the other problem although was the Cook strait earthquakes,removing a lot of income ( theatres etc parking ) as buildings were demolished and red stickered,also impacting in ground services in a big way.

                  • Poission

                    No where does it say that funding will be provided by central government,that is a Guess on you part,it is not in the legislation.

                    If it is funded by the government,then by law the assets cannot appear on the Government balance sheet,which increases the net debt.

                    You provided a paper to try and validate you argument that showed a difference between two methods of a small town population of around Levin.The information is limited to replicate as it is essentially a review.

                    A coherent set of data is a listable set of qualities, 1,2,3 …..from which you ascertain trends and flows,from there you can make assumptions that may have predictive qualities of only a probalistic nature.if you are modelling you can offset the data using random numbers to understand the evolution of the dataset.then take another starting position etc.The outcome of the multiple sets is then averaged for the best fit average with an average error say 15000 +/- 3.75%.

                    Now you show me the data set with 36000 on it,that shows how it was ascertained.

                    • Poission

                      health data reporting is near impossible to get a decent handle on,as you found when trying to ascertain the Influenza surveillance data

        • Nic the NZer 4.3.1.2

          Your Markov assumptions may well be independent, but most people actually have a memory longer than a goldfish.

  5. Well put Advantage. Clear concise and shows how flimsy some arguments have been in regard to water reform (and crime)

    Playing groups off against each other is a low tactic, using fear to create uncertainty.

    It is a "go to" for both National and Act to try to swing the middle vote.

    Their own past office holders have come out strongly against these positions.

    Thankyou Chris Finlayson and Sir Peter Gluckman for your courage and conviction, to call out obdurate political ploys, which clearly are to pitch failed policies for political gain.

    The long history of successful co-governance shows many arguments are made of straw.

  6. Graeme 6

    Findlayson delivered a pretty strident defence of co-governance at the recent Water NZ conference. Water NZ is also quite enthusiastic about 3 Waters reform, but they are the poor bugger who have to try and turn council decisions into safe outcomes for public and environment.

    Co-governance has been the reality of water management in Te Waipounamu for thirty years, if you want to apply for or renew a consent to take or discharge Ngai Tahu will be involved and if they don't like it you're not doing it easily. And the world still goes round, and probably a lot smoother for all.

    Once Ngai Tahu became involved Queenstown's kinda treated sewage discharge got a major upgrade with pre-treatment into ponds and discharge to filter field rather than straight into Shotover / Kawarau. All happened within months after years of procrastination.

  7. Yes came to mention Chris Finlayson and before him Doug Graham as totally on the side of greater moves to ensure Maori are able to play the role envisaged as a Treaty partner. Both of these Ministers in the NP were instrumental in making sure claims were investigated etc.

    Given that, Robert Guyton's thought about why there is such a fuss being made is right on point

    Coz, racist.

    Sure there is not enough 'education' about treaty matters etc, but there is also a distressing, in my view, willingness to burst into print or speech without having done the research.

    From a personal point of view in a very small sample of friends and family from Auckland and the South Island I note that far from finding closet racists in the waybacks (as before) I have been struck by how much OTT stuff is coming forward from Auckland. I thought Auckland was the largest Polynesian city in NZ. And Maori are Polynesian people.

    I think it has some thing to do Covid or perhaps i first noticed that there was no shame in being racist coming about during Covid, in the general blame and moaning that came about then. But then this may not be truly linked (correlation/causation argument)

  8. Andy 8

    I don't think this has been handled very well at all. Whether of not 3 Waters is a good idea or not, the general feeling in the sticks is negative. "Stop Three Waters" signs are everywhere. My former mayor in the Mackenzie was seen wearing a "Stop 3 Waters" T shirt at a recent event.

    It doesn't seem like anyone in Wellington really cares though

    • Shanreagh 8.1

      It doesn't seem like anyone in Wellington really cares though

      My view is that Labour/Wellington over estimated how educated NZers are. In comms parlance there is a view that any communications to educate the general public should be pitched at the education level of about 12 years level (ie pre secondary school) though I have seen it expressed at 9 years old.

      Also co-governance seems to have been grabbed by closet racists opening the closet door who seem to have been emboldened to say & write racist ideas. . Not asking a question to elucidate but statements based on ethnicity.

      The discretion button seems to have been broken.

      • Andy 8.1.1

        Yes that's right, We are all stupid and racist.

        Thanks for the clarification

        • Shanreagh 8.1.1.1

          Did I mention you personally? No I did not.

          I was expecting some comment on whether you thought the level was pitched too high or whether you thought that racist comment seems to abound. So lots of heat but not much light.

          I have a qual in Comms and was just repeating what the level is to aim for in public comms.

          https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/11/measure-reading-levels-with-readability-indexes/

          This level has been around for many many years and I heard it first in the mid 1990s (prior to getting the qualification) through having a draft press release red-lined by our Comms people who said drafts needed to be 'written for a 12 year old audience'.

          My thought is that possibly the comms from Wellington about 3 Waters may have been pitched at above 12 years …….

          Not sure that anyone can deny that some of the anti 3 Waters rhetoric has been racist.

          • Andy 8.1.1.1.1

            Well everything and everyone is "racist" these day, so it's all a bit tiresome. Actual racism gets lost in the woods

            • Shanreagh 8.1.1.1.1.1

              When are you actually going to comment on the reading level and whether those who blithely think 3 Waters is racist are correct?

              I know racism is mentioned frequently. As an observer I don't think I can remember a time before when it is seen as being quite Ok say racist things, mainly about 3 Waters, hence my comment about the discretion switch being lost.

              The tragedy is that some of these sayings are based on a misreading of the draft legislation or an over reliance on possibly biased or uninformed commentary.

              • Andy

                The low resolution response to 3 Waters is that co-governance is inherently racist because it separates governance based on race.

                I accept that there is more too it than that, but that is a standard response, and the reaction to that response is "that's racist".

                So we end up with two groups of people screaming "racist" at each other.

                That's essentially my point, and it would be helpful to get an intelligent rebuttal to this that doesn't condescend to either group.

            • Robert Guyton 8.1.1.1.1.2

              What then, Andy, does "racist" mean to you? Your pithy explanation will be a big help for those of us (everyone) who believe it's everywhere (everything)!

  9. Thank you Graeme, a great response. Findlayson is a remarkable man.

  10. thebiggestfish7 10

    A good article. I am generally on board with the restructure and no problems with co-governance. The issue however and the reason for so much opposition is that as currently drafted, the legislation actually provides all the power to Iwi through the ability to exclusively issue Te Mana o te Wai statements.

    Te Mana o te Wai statements must be given effect by the water entities and therefore determine everything about or water infrastructure, delivery and treatment. IE currently it is just Iwi Governance.

    That to me is why there is so much opposition to Three Waters.

    • Shanreagh 10.1

      I think people need to read the actual draft legislation

              <strong>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2022/0136/latest/LMS534587.html?search=y_bill%40bill_2022__bc%40bcur_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&amp;p=1</strong>
      
              <strong>Te Mana o Te Wai Statements</strong>
      
              <strong>Clauses 140 -142</strong>
      
      
      
              <strong>140 </strong> Mana whenua may provide Te Mana o te Wai statements for water services
      
              (1)
      
              A Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services may be provided to a water services entity by mana whenua&mdash;
      
              (a)
      
              whose rohe or takiwā includes a water body in the service area; or
      
              (b)
      
              whose interests in the service area are recognised in a Treaty settlement Act.
      
              (2)
      
              A Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services provided under subsection (1) may&mdash;
      
              (a)
      
              be provided by an individual iwi or hapū, or by a group of iwi or hapū:
      
              (b)
      
              relate to 1 water body, or to multiple water bodies.
      
              (3)
      
              Mana whenua who have provided a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services under subsection (1)&mdash;
      
              (a)
      
              may review the statement at any time; and
      
              (b)
      
              following a review, may provide a new statement that replaces the statement that was reviewed, in which case, the reviewed statement expires when it is replaced.
      
              (4)
      
              A statement provided under subsection (1) or (3)(b) expires after 10 years.
      
              <strong>141</strong>
      
              141Water services entity must respond to Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services
      
              (1)
      
              As soon as practicable after receiving a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services under section 140, the board of a water services entity must&mdash;
      
              (a)
      
              acknowledge receipt of the statement; and
      
              (b)
      
              engage with the mana whenua who provided the statement in accordance with section 202 in relation to the preparation of a response to the Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services.
      
              (2)
      
              A response to a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services must include a plan that sets out how the water services entity intends (consistent with, and without limiting, section 4(1)(b)) to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that it applies to the entity&rsquo;s duties, functions, and powers.
      
              <strong>142</strong>
      
              142 Obligation to publish response to Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services
      
      
      
              The board of a water services entity must make its response to a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services publicly available by publishing a copy on an Internet site maintained by, or on behalf of, the entity in a format that is readily accessible&mdash;
      
              (a)
      
              as soon as practicable after issuing the response; and
      
              (b)
      
              in any event, within 2 years after receiving the statement to which it relates.
      
      
      
              The Interpretation section has the definition of  Te Mana o te Wai
      
              <strong>Te Mana o te Wai&mdash;</strong>
      
              (a)
      
              has the meaning set out in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management issued in 2020 under section 52 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and any statement issued under that section that amends or replaces the 2020 statement (and <em>see also</em> sections 4, 5, and 13 of this Act); and
      
              (b)
      
              applies, for the purposes of this Act, to water (as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991)
      
              Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services means a statement provided by mana whenua to a water services entity under section 140
      
              So this has been around since 2020.  
      
              The link to this is here. It is worth a read to find out how water and people focussed it is and how non scary or non threatening it is to those who care/will care for water and people. 
      
              https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/national-policy-statement-for-freshwater-management-2020.pdf
      
              'Te Mana o te Wai is a concept that refers to the fundamental importance of water and recognises that protecting the health of freshwater protects the health and well-being of the wider environment. It protects the mauri of the wai. Te Mana o te Wai is about restoring and preserving the balance between the water, the wider environment, and the community.'
              </td>
              <td> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
              <td> </td>
              <td> </td>
          </tr>
      </tbody>
      
    • Anker 10.2

      Yes the biggestfish7 " Te Mana o te Wai statements must be given effect by the water entities and therefore determine everything about or water infrastructure, delivery and treatment i.e currently it is just iwi governance".

      100%. There is nothing Co about it.

      So many of us see that and are unhappy about it. But according to some on this site we are both stupid and racist for saying so.

      • Shanreagh 10.2.1

        I'd like to know your source for this statement.

        Of course it sounds very scary.

        It is not exactly how it will work when you look at the latest draft of the legislation but I appreciate it is your story you are telling and the actual draft legislation may or may not have any relation to or impact on the story.

        The actual process will be that mana whenua and the entity will get together to work on how they will/are able to respond, then the response 'must include a plan that sets out how the water services entity intends (consistent with, and without limiting, section 4(1)(b)) to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that it applies to the entity's duties, functions, and powers. (from 141 (2) – my underlining.

        The draft legislation

        140 Mana whenua may provide Te Mana o te Wai statements for water services

        (1) A Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services may be provided to a water services entity by mana whenua;

        (a) whose rohe or takiwā includes a water body in the service area;

        or

        (b) whose interests in the service area are recognised in a Treaty settlement Act.

        (2) A Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services provided under subsection (1) may;

        (a) be provided by an individual iwi or hapū, or by a group of iwi or hapū:

        (b) relate to 1 water body, or to multiple water bodies.

        (3) Mana whenua who have provided a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services under subsection (1);

        (a) may review the statement at any time;

        and

        (b) following a review, may provide a new statement that replaces the statement that was reviewed, in which case, the reviewed statement expires when it is replaced.

        (4) A statement provided under subsection (1) or (3)(b) expires after 10 years.

        141 Water services entity must respond to Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services

        (1) As soon as practicable after receiving a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services under section 140, the board of a water services entity must;

        (a) acknowledge receipt of the statement;

        and (b) engage with the mana whenua who provided the statement in accordance with section 202 in relation to the preparation of a response to the Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services.

        (2) A response to a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services must include a plan that sets out how the water services entity intends (consistent with, and without limiting, section 4(1)(b)) to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that it applies to the entity's duties, functions, and powers.

        142

        142 Obligation to publish response to Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services

        The board of a water services entity must make its response to a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services publicly available by publishing a copy on an Internet site maintained by, or on behalf of, the entity in a format that is readily accessible; (a) as soon as practicable after issuing the response;

        and

        (b) in any event, within 2 years after receiving the statement to which it relates.

        There has been provision for Te Mana o te Wai statements for freshwater since August 2020 under the RMA. I don't know if any have been provided but the provision has been there for just over two years without the sky falling in. The draft bill has brought this in to now apply to 3/5 waters.

        But you obviously think it is something new and scary. It isn't.

        Please look at the interview with Dr Baker in the link below.

        https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/freshwater-implementation-guidance/te-mana-o-te-wai-implementation/

  11. Gosman 11

    There is a misunderstanding why ACT and National have supported co-governance arrangements with Iwi in the past. These have been negotiated as part of specific Treaty settlements. Both ACT and National are supportive of the Treaty settlement process.

    General co-governance arrangements as a default position are not being developed as part of formal Treaty settlements and have a major constitutional impact in many cases that both ACT and National do not support.

    • Shanreagh 11.1

      So if we have specific co-governance arrangements spreading the length and breadth of the country it is Ok as long as they are in response to a Treaty claim?

      I don't think you have got it exactly right. The Nats/Act have read this as a hot button issue, whether justified or not, and have unashamedly grabbed onto it as way to show a difference between them and Labour's policies.

      Finlayson clearly thinks differently.

      • Gosman 11.1.1

        So if we have specific co-governance arrangements spreading the length and breadth of the country it is Ok as long as they are in response to a Treaty claim?

        Indeed. If the co-governance arrangement is negotiated in relation to settling a specific Treaty claim with Iwi then it is fine. If the government simply decides that is the approach we should take by default it is not.

  12. Ad

    Urewera is the correct spelling.

  13. Incognito 13

    So, about that alleged veto power of Māori in the proposals for Three Waters reforms. Upon some fact-checking this appears to be (mostly) incorrect. For example:

    The groups will have the power to make appointments to the independent selection panels, which then decide who will sit on the water entity boards. They would also vote on any privatisation proposals that come through down the line. Both of those votes require a 75 percent majority.

    Some have claimed this gives mana whenua the right of veto over decisions by the water entities. But it effectively gives them the right of veto over those two issues – not the operational or governance decisions by the water entities.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/10/are-councils-being-stripped-of-assets-will-m-ori-have-veto-three-waters-explained.html

    You said iwi won’t have a veto right. But iwi will be 50% of boards and major decisions require a 75% majority. So, iwi hold a veto, correct?

    No.

    https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/new-opinion-129/

    Mahuta refuted the idea that the reforms would give mana whenua a right of veto over the management of water services.

    "This does not give mana whenua the right of veto. I think that's been very much a politically charged perspective put out there to seed fear around a new way of working.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018818799/three-waters-minister-responds-to-outpouring-of-opposition

    It is disappointing when people are sucked in by negative propaganda and anti-rhetoric from parties that obviously have their own agenda and then spread it too. It kills off the much-needed debate we ought to be having, not just about Three Waters, but about what the Treaty of Waitangi in general and what this really means to and for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

    • pat 13.1

      What does it mean?

      Does it mean we abandon democracy?

      • Incognito 13.1.1

        Nope, it means we have mashed potatoes for dinner tonight, obviously. How on Earth can you ask such a question in a thread about Co-Governance? Do you have the Brash model of democracy engraved on your forehead?

        • pat 13.1.1.1

          I can ask the question because it deserves an answer….do we abandon democracy?

          • Shanreagh 13.1.1.1.1

            In a word 'no'.

            I can’t think of a better model.

            Though if you have asked the question are you thinking of a better model?
            NB The question does seem to me to be some what “Brashian’ to coin a word.

            Anyway off to put on some potatoes to make mashed spuds…….thanks Incognito.

          • Incognito 13.1.1.1.2

            No, and that’s the answer it deserves.

      • Shanreagh 13.1.2

        What does it mean?

        What does what mean?

        You persist in asking questions framed in the negative.

        What is it about the draft legislation that you have a particular problem with? Are you getting your information about Three waters from reputable sources? NB Talkback radio and some of the commentaries/opinions in Newshub/Stuff or over to the right are not reputable sources. Even on TS there is a far bit of my neighbours grandson's teachers nephew said……

        If you can read the draft legislation that I have linked to or the 2020 Freshwater policy referring to Te Mana o te Wai (also linked) you will see that they do not contain frightening or even mildly concerning stuff.

        Please if you do this then come back with queries that would be great and we can all explore meaning together.

        • pat 13.1.2.1

          All my links have been from the Government websites…..if you can read you should know that.

          As you appear to have a great self belief in your understanding of all things constitutional perhaps you can answer a simple man's question….do we abandon democracy?

          • Shanreagh 13.1.2.1.1

            Please link to something that supports a query about democracy and linking to Three Waters that is from a Govt website.

            I have linked both to the draft legislation and the Te Mana o te Wai statement from the RMA as it relates to freshwater and which is now being referred to in the latest draft of the entities bill.

            There is little more fundamental than linking to the actual draft legislation. If you want to look at it slowly and carefully you will see that it contains nothing that should concern or frighten you or cause you to think our form of democracy is under threat.

            When reading through this is what I do/was taught to do

            read the part of the draft you are concerned about

            read it again

            only then pick up a pencil and write in your own words what you believe the clauses are saying.

            read the draft legislation

            make any changes to what you have written

            What you have written is to define the meaning for you, as an aide memoire. It does not substitute for what is written but puts it in your own words.

            You will find that the legislation is like a story. It has the special words that are used define things.

            a beginning that sets out what is the expectation of the legislation, high level principles, sets up the bare bones of any special other players

            a middle that goes into detail about what the special other players do, what they refer to, how they make decisions

            an end that has schedules of important statements that are to be looked at in their entirety, other pieces of legislation that apply etc.

            So the story builds up all through the legislation. There is a special form of legal writing for legislation 'stories' . When you come across a clause that has say three subclauses. Check carefully whether the clauses are linked by words such as 'or' or 'and' or have no linking words.

            Mana whenua may provide Te Mana o te Wai statements for water services (1) A Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services may be provided to a water services entity by mana whenua

            (a) whose rohe or takiwā includes a water body in the service area; or

            (b) whose interests in the service area are recognised in a Treaty settlement Act.

            So from this clause you can see that mana whenua who have had a treaty claim over an area can provide a statement and also those who have not had a treaty claim but whose boundaries cover the water area.

            If you read the draft like a story (beg, middle, end) you will find it easier. or perhaps like a family tree chart with links from one place to another place

            • pat 13.1.2.1.1.1

              No i will not read endless legislative proposals…i simply ask the question do we abandon democracy?…if you cannot give a concise reply then as far as im concerned you have nothing to say.

              that is the demographic you must convince

              • Shanreagh

                Again 'No.'

                Democracy is not threatened in any way, shape or form by Three Waters as a reading of the draft legislation will show you.

                If you persist in seeking only comments rather than going to what will be the source of the set-up and operation of Three Waters then not many will be able to help you.

                And you are asking the wrong question/s.

    • Shanreagh 13.2

      I agree Incognito. I wish people would find and read through the draft legislation. It is not soooo difficult.

      Much hoo-ha about Te Mana o te Wai and so I find that provision for these has been around since August 2020 and I have no evidence that the sky has fallen. It seems the weather here in Wellington has been unusually pluvial this November but that is surely not to do with the adoption of Te Mana O te Wai for freshwater in 2020.

      https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/national-policy-statement-for-freshwater-management-2020.pdf

  14. It is disappointing when people are sucked in by negative propaganda and anti-rhetoric from parties that obviously have their own agenda and then spread it too. It kills off the much-needed debate we ought to be having, not just about Three Waters, but about what the Treaty of Waitangi in general and what this really means to and for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

    The fingers of bad players are all over this issue. Bearing in mind that they seem to have 'sucked in' a whole heap of NZers.

    Who are these people?

    The only things I can think of are:

    some got used to reading the 'river of filth' rubbish associated with Covid and the vaccines ie the Conspiracy Theories and are still using these sources or sources like them to mis- or dis- inform themselves about Three/Five Waters.

    Or

    perhaps they feel a frisson of excitement at being able to hold and print racist views now that the tolerance and discretion ‘buttons’ in our society seem to have broken.

  15. corey humm 15

    "but then Don Brash lost National the election badly" surely you're not talking about when national nearly won 2005?

    I hate Don Brash but that is a total rewriting of history, Don Brash and his iwi/kiwi campaign took National from 27 seats to 48 seats and within 1% of Labour in just 2 years.

    After Brashs orewa speech national out polled Labour for much of 2004 until Helen Clark u-turned and Labour started Maori bashing themselves "the haters and wreckers" " waitangi day circus have arrived in Wellington "

    have y'all forgotten Labours seabed and foreshore bill , the one that created the Maori party?

    Had he not refused to call Winston he probably would have been prime minister as it's common knowledge the Maori party were willing to go with National, as they did in the next three elections.

    Brownley said at the time that both national and Labour could rely on 57 seats

    Labour had 50 seats, greens 6 and the progressive party (rip) 1

    National had 48, act 2, united future 3 , Maori party 4.

    Winston was the deciding factor and Brash couldn't bring himself to call. Dunne who could always go either way was persuaded to do a second consecutive support agreement with Labour once he was offered the ministry of revenue.

    Don Brash did not badly lose and anti treaty of waitangi rhetoric did not cost national the election, quite the contrary, anti treaty sentiment was so rife after Brashs orewa speech Labour and national both went out of their way to bash Maori.

    In fact this entire term seems to trying to right the wrongs of the Clark govts second term re Maori relations.

    The difference between Clark and Ardern is that Clark was a political realist, Clark would have read the tea leaves and seen that three waters could cost the govt a third term and sent it to the paper shredder about three months ago when national by then had been ahead in the polls for six months, because no one policy would have been worth losing office.

    Ardern however is willing to die on this hill. Ardern is unable to recalibrate or even articulate why she is willing to die on this hill and struggled to bring people with her.

    Had Brash faced Ardern he would have annihilated her, Clark only won 2005 because she recalibrated/triangulated in mid 2004.

    Ardern has always been lousy at countering attacks (2017s so called tax hole and we'll this entire year) she sucks at explaining and debating benefits of policy and bringing people with her on unpopular policies preferring to just ditch them (cgt) , ignore them (weed) or outright refuse to debate the premise of a debate (three waters, co-govt) and when forced to actually explain nitty gritty of policy flails around and says weird memey shit like "you know it when you see it" ( hate speech lol)

    Jacinda Ardern is no policy wink like Helen Clark who would rip you to shreds in a debate, Ardern is just the public face of govt , a show boater like John Key , not a task master who kept tabs in every minute detail like Clark.

    Tldr Brash nearly won 2005 cos of his anti Maori policies and made Labour bash Maori. Proponents of co-governace in the delivery of public service and three waters have failed to bring the public on board and are risking 9 years of national/act austerity and ruthenasia 2.0 on an ideological crusade the public doesn't agree with based on an understanding of TOW the public rejects.

    How is this policy that will be immediately reversed worth 9 years of ruthenasia and austerity?

    Labour can't care too much about Maori , the poor or the environment or the health system if it's willing to risk 9 years of brutal austerity on us.

    • Shanreagh 15.1

      "but then Don Brash lost National the election badly"

      This is part of a sentence in the opening post by Ad.

      The complete sentence is

      'We have seen Act’s politics driven under the guise of Don Brash many years ago – but then Don Brash lost National the election badly and most Councils have put in the Maori seats he thought were so racist.'

      By concentrating on one part of one sentence and using this to hang a critique of the whole premise is misleading. I find it one over lightly and that is unusual from CH.

      The sentence could be very easily clarified and this would not change the premise of Ad's paper at all. So the error is not material.

      Ad's premise is that both National and Labour are in favour of co-governance as a way of managing. This is indicated by ref to the Treaty claims that National has ratified and by Labour's explicit policies in Three Waters.

      Ad does not let Act off the hook either with a paraphrase

      “Yes, the Crown did sign a Treaty of Waitangi with iwi and hapu and what it have iwi and hapu in exchange for ceding their sovereignty to Queen Victoria was protection of their property rights, protection of their chieftainship – of their status – and protection of their customary lands.”

      So the current narrative that that 'this' wouldn't have happened under the Nats/Act (insert any right wing combo you like) is incorrect based on past performance from the Nats, & Act's view of the Treaty.

      The premise advanced by Ad is worthy. It is hard to see how without some form of very obvious supremo wriggling that the Nats can oppose this form of co-governance when their actions while they were in Govt previously belie this.

      To back co-governance in individual Treaty terms but deny its existence in terms of the overarching & fundamental Treaty partnership is like 'counting how many angels can dance on a pinhead'.

      (Referring to Gosman who has advanced this view….I don't support this)

      From Wiki
      ‘At the 17 September 2005 general election, National under Brash’s leadership made major gains and achieved what was at the time the party’s best result since the institution of the mixed-member proportional electoral system in 1993 – recovering from its worst ever result in 2002. Final results placed National two seats behind the incumbent New Zealand Labour Party, with National unable to secure a majority from the minor parties to form a governing coalition.”

      For more info about Brash and his disregard for the Treaty etc

      ‘In 2016, he founded the right-wing lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, to seek to nullify the partnership between Māori and the Crown, and further oppose equitable measures for Māori.’

  16. Anker 16

    Corey Humm, once again I am on my feet giving you a standing ovation.

    Excellent i.e all your points

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Advancing our relationship in India
    Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta departs for India tomorrow as she continues to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand to the world.  The visit will begin in New Delhi where the Foreign Minister will meet with the Vice President Hon Jagdeep Dhankar and her Indian Government counterparts, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government Northland housing investment to spark transformational change
    Over $10 million infrastructure funding to unlock housing in Whangārei The purchase of a 3.279 hectare site in Kerikeri to enable 56 new homes Northland becomes eligible for $100 million scheme for affordable rentals Multiple Northland communities will benefit from multiple Government housing investments, delivering thousands of new homes for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Battle of Ohaeawai remembered
    A memorial event at a key battle site in the New Zealand land wars is an important event to mark the progress in relations between Māori and the Crown as we head towards Waitangi Day, Minister for Te Arawhiti Kelvin Davis said. The Battle of Ohaeawai in June 1845 saw ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • More Police deployed to the frontline
    More Police officers are being deployed to the frontline with the graduation of 54 new constables from the Royal New Zealand Police College today. The graduation ceremony for Recruit Wing 362 at Te Rauparaha Arena in Porirua was the first official event for Stuart Nash since his reappointment as Police ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Further support for upper North Island regions hit by significant weather
    The Government is unlocking an additional $700,000 in support for regions that have been badly hit by the recent flooding and storm damage in the upper North Island. “We’re supporting the response and recovery of Auckland, Waikato, Coromandel, Northland, and Bay of Plenty regions, through activating Enhanced Taskforce Green to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • The Princess Royal to visit New Zealand
    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has welcomed the announcement that Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, Princess Anne, will visit New Zealand this month. “Princess Anne is travelling to Aotearoa at the request of the NZ Army’s Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals, of which she is Colonel in Chief, to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Government and horticulture sector target $12b in exports by 2035
    A new Government and industry strategy launched today has its sights on growing the value of New Zealand’s horticultural production to $12 billion by 2035, Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor said. “Our food and fibre exports are vital to New Zealand’s economic security. We’re focussed on long-term strategies that build on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Cost of living support extended for families and businesses
    25 cents per litre petrol excise duty cut extended to 30 June 2023 – reducing an average 60 litre tank of petrol by $17.25 Road User Charge discount will be re-introduced and continue through until 30 June Half price public transport fares extended to the end of June 2023 saving ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • More Kiwis in work as rising wages match inflation
    The strong economy has attracted more people into the workforce, with a record number of New Zealanders in paid work and wages rising to help with cost of living pressures. “The Government’s economic plan is delivering on more better-paid jobs, growing wages and creating more opportunities for more New Zealanders,” ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Government boosts fund for Auckland flooding
    The Government is providing a further $1 million to the Mayoral Relief Fund to help communities in Auckland following flooding, Minister for Emergency Management Kieran McAnulty announced today. “Cabinet today agreed that, given the severity of the event, a further $1 million contribution be made. Cabinet wishes to be proactive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Cabinet focused on bread and butter issues
    The new Cabinet will be focused on core bread and butter issues like the cost of living, education, health, housing and keeping communities and businesses safe, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has announced. “We need a greater focus on what’s in front of New Zealanders right now. The new Cabinet line ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Prime Minister to meet with PM Albanese
    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins will travel to Canberra next week for an in person meeting with Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. “The trans-Tasman relationship is New Zealand’s closest and most important, and it was crucial to me that my first overseas trip as Prime Minister was to Australia,” Chris Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Government makes first payment to Auckland Flooding fund
    The Government is providing establishment funding of $100,000 to the Mayoral Relief Fund to help communities in Auckland following flooding, Minister for Emergency Management Kieran McAnulty announced. “We moved quickly to make available this funding to support Aucklanders while the full extent of the damage is being assessed,” Kieran McAnulty ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government steps up to assist Auckland during flooding
    As the Mayor of Auckland has announced a state of emergency, the Government, through NEMA, is able to step up support for those affected by flooding in Auckland. “I’d urge people to follow the advice of authorities and check Auckland Emergency Management for the latest information. As always, the Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Poroporoaki: Titewhai Te Huia Hinewhare Harawira
    Ka papā te whatitiri, Hikohiko ana te uira, wāhi rua mai ana rā runga mai o Huruiki maunga Kua hinga te māreikura o te Nota, a Titewhai Harawira Nā reira, e te kahurangi, takoto, e moe Ka mōwai koa a Whakapara, kua uhia te Tai Tokerau e te kapua pōuri ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Enhanced Task Force Green Approved following Cyclone Hale
    Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development and Employment, has activated Enhanced Taskforce Green (ETFG) in response to flooding and damaged caused by Cyclone Hale in the Tairāwhiti region. Up to $500,000 will be made available to employ job seekers to support the clean-up. We are still investigating whether other parts ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • General Election to be held on 14 October 2023
    The 2023 General Election will be held on Saturday 14 October 2023, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today. “Announcing the election date early in the year provides New Zealanders with certainty and has become the practice of this Government and the previous one, and I believe is best practice,” Jacinda ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces resignation
    Jacinda Ardern has announced she will step down as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party. Her resignation will take effect on the appointment of a new Prime Minister. A caucus vote to elect a new Party Leader will occur in 3 days’ time on Sunday the 22nd of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago