Daily review 01/11/2022

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, November 1st, 2022 - 43 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

43 comments on “Daily review 01/11/2022 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Muttonbird 1
    1 November 2022 at 6:50 pm

    I always like to boil down political positions to the reduced, or purest, form.

    The bespoke anti-Three Waters mayoral taskforce announced by mayors Brown Wayne and Major Phil boils down to this:

    Three Waters, yes ok, but without the Murrays, please!

    • tinderdry6 1.1
      1 November 2022 at 7:23 pm

      I disagree.

      From the summary on Stuff:

      "A key feature of their plan for regional water organisations is that they would be owned and governed by the participating councils, with co-governance to be determined by each body."

      "The new plan would allow regions to decide how big their new entities would be, rather than the four regional entities proposed nationwide."

      “The new proposal would maintain crucial aspects of central government’s existing plan, including the new water regulator, Taumata Arowai, while maintaining local ownership, control and accountability and allowing for meaningful roles for mana whenua,” the Brown and Mauger said in a statement."

      IMHO, the proposals represent a decent attempt to circumvent the most contentious areas of the current 3Waters proposals, while maintaining explicit support for iwi mana whenua involvement.

      • Anker 1.1.1
        1 November 2022 at 7:50 pm

        Agree Tinderdry66. Far better than creating four separate entities.

        • SPC 1.1.1.1
          1 November 2022 at 8:46 pm

          "The new plan would allow regions to decide how big their new entities would be, rather than the four regional entities proposed nationwide."

          • Ad 1.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2022 at 9:37 pm

            Regions being Auckland and Canterbury.

            Jesus people figure it out.

            The only people who can ever be trusted to keep water assets in local control is local Maori.

            Over a century pakeha local government politicians shifted from pastoral colonisers to commercial privatisers and did the same thing over and over again with different descriptors and same results.

            • tinderdry6 1.1.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2022 at 10:15 pm

              "Regions being Auckland and Canterbury."

              Opposition to the governments 4 entity proposal is far wider spread that just Auckland and Canterbury.

            • Shanreagh 1.1.1.1.1.2
              1 November 2022 at 10:37 pm

              I agree Ad. The proposal is for 'watered down' Maori representation because they would be the most likely to question our current extractive model and the most likely to seek more appropriate ways forward to protect water as a taonga.

              We have done appallingly badly under majority (white) council control. A whirl at full co-governance can't be any worse and would probably be better. I've had experience in land and health where better decisions were made once we got participation and involvement from Maori.

              Yes so more like status quo with no Murrays.

      • RosieLee 1.1.2
        1 November 2022 at 8:32 pm

        Follow the money.

      • Mac1 1.1.3
        1 November 2022 at 9:01 pm

        "with co-governance to be determined by each body."

        What does that mean exactly from the Stuff summary?

        Does it mean what Muttonbird 'suggests'- "without the Murrays?"

        Apart from that somewhat important question. what councils have discussed the 3 Waters issue and agreed a position such as proposed by three Mayors acting without consulting their councils?

        Where are the local authorities really with this issue?

        I am seeing a very unrealistic scenario being proposed- these mayors are saying reluctantly there are problems with the three waters but want central government taxpayer money to fix the problems themselves which they themselves have not dealt with up till now. They want the money but still want control of the assets and the government money but no recognition of the duty of government firstly to see the needed reforms are actually implemented properly and quickly without undue influence by vested interests, and secondly to see that government funds are spent properly.

        • tinderdry6 1.1.3.1
          1 November 2022 at 9:23 pm

          "What does that mean exactly from the Stuff summary?"

          It means what it says. Each entity will decide, the proposed structure allows for "meaningful roles for mana whenua".

          " what councils have discussed the 3 Waters issue and agreed a position such as proposed by three Mayors acting without consulting their councils?"

          The proposal was put to the public yesterday. It is a proposal of the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch as an alternative to the government plans. They are "seeking further support over how local body water supply operations should be reformed." This would seem a sensible approach.

          "Where are the local authorities really with this issue?"

          With 3Waters? There has been vocal and widespread opposition across the country to the current government proposals. These have come not only from councils, but in some cases iwi.

          "these mayors are saying reluctantly there are problems with the three waters but want central government taxpayer money to fix the problems themselves which they themselves have not dealt with up till now."

          The debate is not over whether there are problems, but the best way to resolve them. The government proposals assume local councils should give up effective control over substantial assets their ratepayers have funded, and the revenue stream those assets currently generate. It is hardly surprising the proposals have come up against substantial opposition.

          • Ad 1.1.3.1.1
            1 November 2022 at 9:28 pm

            Te Tauihu only opposed the boundary, not the plan itself.

            The faster local government is stripped of water management the better.

            Every single part of water management in New Zealand is getting rapidly worse, apart from the bits where government has thrown hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at it.

            • tinderdry6 1.1.3.1.1.1
              1 November 2022 at 10:09 pm

              I don't see any advantage in removing control of the assets from the people who have funded them. The best way to resolve the current issues are more local representation, not less.

              • Ad …
                2 November 2022 at 6:30 am

                You need to go back to the purpose and objective of the reforms in the first place and what caused them.

                Also remember that there is very little removal of control from 'the people' because no one elects the water entity boards at the moment. At Watercare the board is simply 'refreshed' in a glacial process in which outside consultants from Sheffield vet a tiny number of applicants to the Board.

                There is no control by the Council about how it is run – other than at budget time when there is an in-council consultation about price and its cumulative effect with rates.

                Otherwise Watercare and the other major entities are their own kingdoms who have reduced us all from citizens to customers.

                Which was the intent of the legislation when water entities were corporatised by National in the first place in the early 1990s.

                • tinderdry6 …
                  2 November 2022 at 9:11 am

                  The main reason reform is necessary is because central government have failed to match population growth (driven by its own policies) with infrastructure investment. The question is not the need for reform; the question is what is the best vehicle for delivering that reform?

                  On the issue of accountability, I disagree. In Auckland, Watercare is a COO directly accountable to an elected governing body of councillors. The poor performance of some of our COO's (e.g. AT) was a significant issue in the recent elections. That is a very different proposition to what the current government proposal looks like.

      • Ad 1.1.4
        1 November 2022 at 9:25 pm

        IMHO there are few councils who have decent Maori relationships and fewer who manage water competently.

        Does anyone know where Auckland's water increasingly comes from? Not Auckland Council or Watercare who repeatedly showed they had no idea how to plan for water supply. It comes from the Waikato River, manager by an iwi partnership with the Waikato people.

        Check out two entities with terrible iwi relationships: Wellington and Canterbury. They are also two of the very worst performers for water management in stormwater and wastewater.

        The entities who benefit from the Auckland and Canterbury proposals are the richest and most powerful local government entities in New Zealand. Not the small ones.

        Sure they may well just fix a holding pattern before the Dec 2023 election. My bet is they will lose, and the new Labour led government will just roll over them like the toxic fucking bugs they are.

      • Ad 1.1.5
        1 November 2022 at 9:32 pm

        It means Canterbury and Auckland get to dictate whatever they want.

        Auckland has a minor extension to take the whole of Waikato, Canterbury takes Waimakariri and up to Nelson, and of course Christchurch Holding Company accidentally wipes out Dunedin Council as it's been angling to do for years (check out their move to build a competing airport in Tarras and eradicate QLDC airport).

        It's the bog basic kingdom-building that Watercare have been lobbying for ever since Mark Ford was in power.

        • tinderdry6 1.1.5.1
          1 November 2022 at 11:09 pm

          "It means Canterbury and Auckland get to dictate whatever they want."

          Under the current proposals, Auckland would have a minority vote on the new northern entity when it is likely contribute more than 90% of the assets. How is that fair?

          • Ad 1.1.5.1.1
            2 November 2022 at 6:24 am

            You really want to fly an argument as weak as 'fairness' about Auckland and water resource allocation?

            Go for it.

            • tinderdry6 1.1.5.1.1.1
              2 November 2022 at 8:57 am

              How is it fair that an entity contributing 90% of the assets has a minority vote?

              • Shanreagh …
                3 November 2022 at 11:30 am

                Wellington Water has operated on a one council one vote for its current water entity. As I said the sky has not fallen down.

                I thought Auckland had a water entity? Does it only cover Auckland? How does it then manage to get water from the Waikato?

                While Auckland may have contributed assets it will have by far the greatest call on the work of the new organisation by dint of its population. How are you marrying this in? So we get to starve the regions again without a coordinated approach to water.

                I don’t really get this ‘wah, wah only one vote’ when we are moving to a new age, stage and hopefully better way of managing water. How would you plan this to give mana Whenua a fair deal? Would they be given an extra vote as well?

                • tinderdry6 …
                  3 November 2022 at 4:04 pm

                  "I thought Auckland had a water entity?"

                  Auckland's water entity is Watercare, which is currently investing around $1.2bm of ratepayers money into the central interceptor project.

                  "Does it only cover Auckland?"

                  Yes.

                  "How does it then manage to get water from the Waikato?"

                  The Waikato river is as little as 3km from Auckland. Auckland gets about 1/3 of its water from the Waikato, which is a more environmentally acceptable solution than building more catchment.

                  "While Auckland may have contributed assets it will have by far the greatest call on the work of the new organisation by dint of its population."

                  That's irrelevant. The opening ownership/control should reflect the assets introduced.

                  "How are you marrying this in?"

                  Easy. The larger number of users in Auckland will pay the largest amount toward ongoing supply.

                  "I don’t really get this ‘wah, wah only one vote’ "

                  You might if you were an Auckland ratepayer who has been paying for the assets Auckland has accumulated.

                  • Shanreagh …
                    3 November 2022 at 7:19 pm

                    Our regional grouping works very well in Wellington and it is but a short step to involving mana Whenua in a greater role.

                    I don't recall there was an outcry about assets when WCC joined all of the others as the point was to bring to the grouping what we could and make a paln to do better. This is basically that is at the heart of Three Waters, to have a forward thinking way of doing it better.

                    With Auckland having a majority of votes won't this defeat the whole idea of Three waters where cooperation and a new approach is key? So wouldn't Auckland just defeat any moves that meant other areas got to have their possibly more pressing needs looked at?

                    What would happen if Auckland did not get to swamp all the votes?

                    Wouldn't the group be able to act on fixing and investing in the areas that needed this as a matter of urgency?

                    NB I still think this is an ill-concealed ruse to knock out co-governance.

                    • tinderdry6 …
                      3 November 2022 at 8:06 pm

                      "With Auckland having a majority of votes won't this defeat the whole idea of Three waters where cooperation and a new approach is key?"

                      No. It simply reflects the reality of the ratio of assets introduced. There is also the reality that the largest entity will contribute the most revenue. It's simple fairness.

                      The idea of councils handing billions of dollars of assets over to central government with virtually no say in how they are to be run was never a sensible notion.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      3 November 2022 at 9:12 pm

                      So wouldn't Auckland just defeat any moves that meant other areas got to have their possibly more pressing needs looked at?

                      What would happen if Auckland did not get to swamp all the votes?

                      You did not comment on these questions and I have no doubt that this is what will happen to the local authorities unlucky enough to have to share one of the new entities with Auckland. I mean a city that can elect an ageing Trump look alike/act alike is hardly going to turn around and play nicely in the sandpit with the others are they?

                      How would you make your system far to the others who may actually have more pressing needs than Auckland's

      • Shanreagh 1.1.6
        1 November 2022 at 10:30 pm

        I actually thought it watered down the proposed co-governance role.

        Some Councils have poor representation of Iwi Maori. Perhaps if the suggestion is adopted the co-governance could be stipulated by Govt rather than by each region. I think leaving it to regions would mean we still have the patchy co-governance that exists at the moment and no improvement on the horizon.

        Not sure that regions would be any less expensive to run than 4 bigger entities.

        • tinderdry6 1.1.6.1
          1 November 2022 at 11:01 pm

          The co-governance issue is a red herring IMHO that has been misused by critics as a stick to beat the 3waters proposals with. I'm more concerned with the inequity of ratepayers losing control over billions of dollars worth of assets. and having even less accountability for the delivery of water services than they do now. In the case of Auckland ratepayers, that means we end up with ” having only a minority vote on the new northern entity when it is likely contribute more than 90% of the assets”. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/130328610/government-open-to-change-as-coalition-of-mayors-pushes-new-vision-for-water-reforms

          • Shanreagh 1.1.6.1.1
            2 November 2022 at 6:22 pm

            Not a red herring for me.

            In Wellington our water went from the direct control of Council years ago. so that horse has bolted. As far as I am aware this has not caused the sky to fall in though the entity is plagued by the results of same sorts of underinvestment that plagued the Council when water was under its direct control. So direct Council control = fail

            CCO water entity = fail

            We have nothing to lose and everything to gain with a new look and way of dealing with water. Outmoded models are just that – outmoded

              • Shanreagh …
                3 November 2022 at 11:26 am

                As I said. CCO with 7 shareholding entities ie no council has direct control. Many/most people don't think of them as being run by WCC and so a move onto another mode particularly one that gave mana whenua a greater say may be easier to achieve than going from an individual Council owned water supply to Three Waters. We dealt with the concept that our water/infrastructure was going to have to be shared years ago.

                WCC has no greater right or say than South Wairarapa District Council. Perhaps as test run this model could be augmented by having an equal number of Mana Whenua. Three Waters could go ahead with all of the CCO water entities by giving mana Whenua equal shares. I'd have no problem with this as a half way house.

                Leaving it up to places like AKL would mean poor representation from Mana Whenua, I am picking, if left to their own devices. If they are bucking at 50% for a Treaty partner that is an equal partner in the Treaty then it is only going to be a minority.

                • tinderdry6 …
                  3 November 2022 at 4:12 pm

                  "As I said. CCO with 7 shareholding entities ie no council has direct control."

                  Of course Council's have control. Read the links.

                  "Leaving it up to places like AKL would mean poor representation from Mana Whenua, I am picking, if left to their own devices. If they are bucking at 50% for a Treaty partner that is an equal partner in the Treaty then it is only going to be a minority."

                  I think you need to make up your mind what 3waters is trying to achieve. I am looking at this from the perspective of finding the best resolution to the current problems, which are the result of decades of underinvestment in infrastructure. If you want to argue the case for incorporating treaty partnership at the governance and/or management level of service delivery, then that's an entirely different conversation.

                  • Shanreagh …
                    3 November 2022 at 7:30 pm

                    If you want to argue the case for incorporating treaty partnership at the governance and/or management level of service delivery, then that's an entirely different conversation.

                    Ummmm Zooooom.

                    Involving the Treaty partner is one of the reasons for having the co-governance proposals.

                    underinvestment in infrastructure.

                    On the basis that all legislation is deemed to be remedial then this is one of the most cogent arguments to amalgamating into entities that can invest, be forward-looking. There are infrastructure replacements that will cost $M and also increasing safety concerns with the current arrangements. And dare I say it cut it loose from all the bickering that is part of the local body circuit.

                    Three Waters is all about looking to the future, the expensive future when much of the infrastructure needs to be replaced. It also gave a chance for the Crown to honour the Treaty and to give its Treaty partner, for whom water is a taonga and not merely an extractive resource, a chance and stake in the future of the country.

                    ETA. My point was that WCC does not have a casting vote or extra votes on Wellington Water. The model works on and with a board of directors and the voting on this is not weighted by Council. It is this aspect I was trying to tease out as being different to your propsal to give Auckland the majority of votes on the new three waters entity. I was alsi trying to say that this has not had repercussions here in Wellington.

                    We have tried the joint model for 6-8 years, it has worked well. We need huge investment in the future in many water areas in our region. So Three Waters is a way to plan for the future.

                    • tinderdry6 …
                      3 November 2022 at 8:13 pm

                      3Waters is an attempt to solve an infrastructure deficit, but it is a flawed model. It essentially shifts the governance and management of a critical natural resource from locally controlled entities to centrally controlled and largely unaccountable entities. It is inequitable to ratepayers who have paid for the assets transferred. And in amongst all of that, the cost of establishing this proposed model could be better invested in actually fixing the infrastructure deficit.

  4. SPC 4
    1 November 2022 at 9:14 pm

    Polls show Netanyahu within reach of a majority – after a deal with this extremist right wing group.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/30/religious-zionism-israel-far-right-different/

    It's a prospect designed to divide the alternative – those united against his return to leadership. Some will break to keep this extreme right wing group from place in government.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63458903

  5. Ad 5
    1 November 2022 at 9:16 pm

    "Elections suck. Elections are for losers. Elections should be disregarded."

    Maddow is on point with the far right Steve Bannon triumphalising Bolsonaro as another far right election denier.

    (339) Maddow: Trump, Acolytes Are Working To Turn Republicans Against Elections (And Succeeding) – YouTube

    Democracy is in retreat the world over and the best response by the left must be active participation in all its forms.

  6. roblogic 6
    1 November 2022 at 10:30 pm

    Losing respect for JBP – his comments on psychology were insightful (pre his near death episode), but he's reverting to more and more BS lately. There's an interview with JBP, Jonathan Pageau and a Muslim imam where JBP indulges in sophistry in an attempt to appear deep. And another where JBP blames the economic woes of the UK on environmentalists rather than the austerity policies of the egregious Tories. Pathetic stuff.

    https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1567519037797826561?s=20&t=O9hE0anj4fMe3RvRdfORYA