Venezuelan socialists opposed to both US and Russian imperialism protest outside Russian embassy in Caracas against the war in Ukraine.
Venezuelan Voices
Caracas, May 13, 2022. In the morning hours, representatives of the Socialism and Freedom Party (PSL), the Toromayma Cultural Collective and the Citizens’ Platform in Defense of the Constitution, gathered in front of the Russian embassy in Caracas, rejecting the invasion of Ukraine, as well as in support of the resistance of the Ukrainian people and workers against Putin’s invading army….
…..As is known, the imperialist army of Russia invaded neighboring Ukraine last February 24. What some would have expected to be a stroll for one of the most powerful armies in the world, has turned into a bloody war in the face of the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people.
Unfortunately, much of the world’s left wrongly supports Putin or assumes a neutral position, de facto endorsing the invasion of Ukraine, a country impoverished by years of brutal adjustments applied by the different capitalist governments that have taken turns in power since Ukraine’s independence in 1991….
…..In our country, the majority of the left has avoided taking a stance, while some directly support the invasion. Hence the importance of the act carried out by PSL, the Toromayma Cultural Collective and the Citizens’ Platform in Defense of the Constitution at the Russian Embassy….
…..Something to note is that a journalist from Agence France Press was there, who, upon realizing that in addition to rejecting the invasion, we did not support NATO or any imperialist intervention, proceeded to leave without covering the protest, a reflection of the censorship exercised in Venezuela by mainstream media, which has its counterpart in the censorship and repression in Russia against anyone who demonstrates in opposition to the invasion.
Good to see people opposing imperialism generally. I get sick of "Western imperialism OK because of Russian imperialism" or "Russian imperialism OK because of Western imperialism" etc
"….I get sick of "Western imperialism OK because of Russian imperialism" or "Russian imperialism OK because of Western imperialism" etc"
Well put. Me too.
In the debate over the invasion of Ukraine, partisan opponents of US imperialism, accuse those of us against this aggression of ignoring the terrible crimes of US imperialism. While they ignore the terrible crimes committed by Russian imperialism.
Putin’s imperialism in Africa
It isn’t just Ukraine: African dictators are just fine with Russia killing for money
April 11, 2022 | 10:12 pm
Last week, at roughly the time that photographs and stories began to filter out of liberated Bucha in Ukraine, the NGO Human Rights Watch published a report of similar massacres which took place contemporaneously in rural Mali. What linked the two was the identity of the perpetrators. In Ukraine and across Africa, these atrocities are committed by Russians…..
…..It might be a little surprising to see how deeply involved Russia and its mercenary armies are in Africa, and how many massacres they seem to be behind.
“The day after the military staged a coup in Burkina Faso in January, supporters of the new regime took to the streets waving Russian flags,” writes Samuel Ramani, the author of the upcoming Russia in Africa, in Foreign Affairs. He documents a diplomatic and military strategy to become an indispensable player on the continent…..
P.S. I disagree with the headline, which personalises Russian imperialism to the character of Vladimir Putin. This personalisation ignores the fact that every country with a growth economy needs to expand.
To gain control of markets, to gain control of the sources of raw materials, to deny their competitors control of these same markets and resources, to expand into every nook and cranny of the globe (and the environment). But infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible, sooner or later you wind up against natural or man made borders that put a limit on that growth. Humanity can obey these limits or try and force through them. Imposing war on the human world and biosphere collapse on the natural world as the result.
P.S. P.S. It is true that there are partisan supporters of US imperialism on our side who ignore the crimes of US imperialism.
Like their opposites on the other side, they ignore the root cause of imperialism because they gain from it. They know that New Zealand gains from being a junior partner of US imperialism and Western domination of the global markets and resources.
Labour and Greens pass – under urgency meaning no public debate – a special SOP clause entrenching public ownership of NZ water assets unless a government can muster 60% of Parliament.
Great result but hate to see that kind of Parliamentary move practised by National against us. Helluva Parliamentary weapon.
Wonderful.
Now if the government use the same boldness to address the cost of living crisis with a GST tax cut – the crisis in our health system with a windfall tax on superprofits – the housing crisis with an empty homes tax. And other bold progressive measures to address inequality, Labour's victory in the election will be assured
My concern here, is that because the Nacts have 'politicised' protecting our waterways; If this sort of bold legislating stops here, the elections will be fought over this sole issue. Conspiracy theories peppered with wild far right accusations against the government of being 'undemocratic'.
We need to take a leaf out of the Right's playbook.
Roger Douglas said I will give my opponents a moving target. And he did with a whirlwind of right wing enactments one after another.
We need to do the same but with progressive left policies.
Don't leave the Nacts with one target.
We will need much more of this sort of bold legislative activism to address the multiple crise assailing this country and government.
The public perception is that the government is 'stealing our water' by removing it from local government ownership to some form of super-regional grouping – with multiple layers of bureaucracy, complete with the (highly controversial) co-governance provisions. [You can argue that this is not the reality, or that people's perception is wrong – but that's the way a large tranche of NZ perceives the issue]
The fact that the government is now saying – oh, we won't let these new entities sell off the water to anyone else, is a completely separate issue.
And this protection is really only required because of the consolidation of the water infrastructure into the super-regional groupings. One really can't imagine the local water infrastructure being sold off, if it remained in local Council ownership – it would be political suicide for the individual councillors.
A council could say it would sell 50% ownership of water because it could not borrow the money required (debt cap) to invest to maintain quality of services – and it and the private equity partner would receive 50% of the water charge revenue (as the government does with power companies – with half ownership on the share market).
What the government has done is guaranteed funding for water services without sale of assets.
My guess is that Labour and Greens will cite the sale of half share of the power companies as why they did this. It is a challenge to National to engage on the issue because of the lack of local council capacity to raise finance to maintain water quality.
Councils at this point have created water organisations without any idea of how to manage future funding cost.
What rort,consumer are paying around the same as 2012,demand is little changed over the last decade,the only problem is they have not been repaying debt to sustain the tax offset in the dividend.
The readers of this site deserve an (better) explanation as to why you think that they pay the roughly same for power as 10 years ago. My power bill and unit price (kWh) certainly have gone up heaps over a decade.
The linked post said nothing about the pricing charged to consumers,that is an assumption that is not even wrong and repeated by yourself.
Your unit cost also includes the lines component (not the fixed charge) from Vector and transpower of around 11c a unit,and the generators have mostly absorbed the 1 billion plus in carbon taxes.demand has not effectively changed since 2012 in demand or generating capacity.
It is at odds with all the pricing data,from the regulators and monitoring such the EA,Mbie,and Transpower,three different regulators all coming to the same conclusion.
Energy affordability is a core pillar of the energy trilemma.Electrification is only likely to occur if electricity is affordable and competitive against other forms of energy.At a household level, the real average cost of electricity hasn’t changed much in the last decade: the average price per kWh decreased from $0.31 in 2012 to $0.30 in 2022. Over the same period, the average household consumption has fallen 4.6%. As
of March 2022, the average household uses 7,261 kWh per year,down from 7,609 in 2012. Consequently, the real average household bill has also decreased and is now $2,194 per year – a reduction of 5.9% since 2012. However, whether these trends continue is uncertain: on 1 April 2022, the Government announced the phase out of the low user fixed charge tariff. In addition, household electricity consumption is likely to increase as electric vehicles become more common. Changes in consumption and cost trends will become evident in future data releases.
That’s a very helpful comment, thank you, although I found it hard to find the relevant part in your link. This is an easier example (and just a simple graph) that confirms your feedback: https://figure.nz/chart/X1TWmnHKBmTvUHZ4-UdJSof4Nstr0cnMI
Yeah and it goes to show how susceptible people are to trojan numbers (showing something completely different from numerical reality) by the emphasis on the big number.
I believed, actually I was quite convinced, that the unit price of generated electricity had gone up in addition to other (fixed) charges and it turns out I was wrong, which is good to know.
The other good thing to know is demand (consumption) of electricity in NZ this year will be down around 1500 gwh,taking us back to consumption levels in 2005.
Have local government ever sold off water infrastructure? Have they ever even proposed doing so?
It seems to me, that the answer is firmly in the 'no' basket.
The test case for this is Auckland – which is effectively already a super-regional body, after the super city amalgamation. Sale of water infrastructure has never even been on the horizon.
For precisely the reasons I specified – that it would be political suicide for the councillors involved.
Not to mention the fact that, for most councils, the water assets would have little value to a third party. It's only when amalgamated into these super-regional organizations, that they become attractive assets. Hence the perceived need for the government to enact this protective legislation.
There are alternatives to completely financing water infrastructure through rates – apart from seizing the infrastructure and implementing a new bureaucracy. They don't, however, promote co-governance – so the Government is profoundly uninterested in them.
As far as I can see, Watercare in Auckland, appear to have a fair grasp on managing future funding cost, as do Kapiti, and I'm quite sure others as well.
Failure from one council (thinking of Wellington, here, who have zero excuse – as they're not a small rural council struggling with funding, but rather have one of the wealthiest rating bases in the country), is just that: failure from that council – which should be firmly punished at the ballot box. [As a side note, I'm going to be interested to see how Tory Whanau is going to tackle this issue]. It's not failure of the 'local control of water assets' model.
As a principle, I'm in favour of local control of locally funded assets. I'm also in favour of cross-border collaboration, and of government support if/when needed (the NZTA model). All of those can happen without the 3 waters empire.
As far as I can see, Watercare in Auckland, appear to have a fair grasp on managing future funding cost, as do Kapiti, and I'm quite sure others as well.
What makes you think Kapiti has anything to offer?
I have property there. Many ratepayers funded, by separate targetted rates, an extension to the water supply and now pay for this again in our current rates. (My contribution was around $1500 in the 1990s.) The rates are very high, our water is metered and highly charged for with no free or uncharged for amount that would help larger families or people who have a disability or medical condition that requires that they use lots of water.
Metered water is all very well but it does disadvantage those on low incomes, and those with health or disability conditions.
And also I think I have it right that the KCDC had an idea, a few decades ago, to mix water from two rivers that was defeated on cultural grounds and we find later would not have worked anyway, $$$$ would have been wasted.
I'd be happy to see your source for the glowing report about Kapiti.
Technically it just ads an extra step in that they would have to remove the requirement to have the 60% vote which just needs a simple majority.
Big problem is if it becomes the norm it ties parliament in knots undoing say 3 strikes… that and it messes with convention given super majorities are only used for electoral arrangements.
Like the nuclear free legislation, though National would dearly love to repeal it and on several occasions have even said they would, they have never dared.
If these progressive policies prove to be popular with the public, even over the Nacts objections it will prove very difficult and unpopular for them to repeal them.
It's not so much about repealing it as a right govt using it widely and under urgency to entrench all sorts of legislation. The door is now open for that to happen.
Like the nuclear free legislation, though National would dearly love to repeal it and on several occasions have even said they would, they have never dared.
A good example of why legislation that gets 'locked in' cab be a bad idea. It isn't 1984 anymore and the ground has shifted. Nuclear power engineering continues to evolve and offers the safest, most reliable path toward de-carbonising our energy systems. A goal the Greens ostensibly support.
Yet a piece of legislation from almost half a century ago stands in the way because they are so emotionally wedded to it.
Assuming storage technology continues to develop rapidly, solar offers the safest and cheapest future non-carbon power source.
Nuclear, when the true costs of building nuclear plants (not the bollocks they quote to get the job) and the true costs of commissioning are built in, remains expensive and potentially dangerous…witness the war in Ukraine
Nuclear, when the true costs of building nuclear plants (not the bollocks they quote to get the job) and the true costs of commissioning are built in, remains expensive
Specifically what type of reactor and what regulatory regime are you talking about?
To be fair, the public hardly know WTF they're looking at after media have turned it into their typical dogs breakfast. Kneejerk Pavlovian press politics.
You might also look at the p**-poor job that the Government have done over communication: 3 waters is just one example, there is a rolling-maul of government policies which have been poorly communicated.
Ardern is excellent at the big picture stuff (a little too inclined to lecture, and stray off the topic, when it's a question she doesn't want to answer) – but her Comms degree stands her in good stead. She has a gift for arrowing in on a point which makes a difference to ordinary Kiwis.
Mahuta is a disaster at communication (well, she may be good on the marae – but she's about 2/10 for Pakeha media). Faafoi was literally appalling (I can't believe he was a journalist, he was so bad). And Little appears to just get angry and dogmatic (for heaven’s sake, just admit there is a hospital staffing crisis, and be done with it)
Kiri Allen is good, as are both Woods and Wood (though the policy u-turns that Wood has to front, don't help). Hipkins is reasonable, though rather too wedded to 'policy speak' instead of translating into soundbites. But there are a solid tranche of senior ministers, who are just really, really, bad at communicating government policy.
Window dressing distraction from the reality that 3W gives effective control to an ethnic elite – a privatisation in all but name.
I am now left to wonder if this new legislation -passed under urgency with no debate and implementing an extraordinary super-majority – will also have the probable effect of politically locking 3W into place.
I certainly agree with that. Otherwise it makes a nonsense of entrenchment – and paves the way for 'entrenched' provisions to be repealed for political reasons.
Which I think is a bad thing.
I'm also not in favour of governments putting through controversial legislation under urgency. I know that both left and right have done so – and I disapprove of both.
Proper debate on legislation – including committees and submissions – is a safeguard against bad law. By which I mean, not ethically bad, but poorly or ambiguously drafted, resulting in unintended consequences; very frequently wording is substantively tightened up in committee stage as the result of public submissions; and proper debate allows the pros and cons to be set out for the rest of NZ (the actual job of the MPs in the House)
There is plenty of routine or widely supported legislation which could go through under urgency – but anything controversial, should not.
It's 5Waters and it's gonna be a clusterfuck. Ngati Porou (NZ's 2nd biggest iwi?) submitted AGAINST as one of the 88,000 (mainly objection). Their rejection= there is no such thing as Te Ao Maori & Matauranga Maori. And trying to get consensus of even 5 iwi reps on boards from about 30 iwi in Entity C covering East Cape to Nelson (!?!) to the Chathams.
Ngāti Porou continue to assert our right to exercise Ngāti Poroutanga and Mātauranga Ngāti Porou within the Ngāti Porou rohe rather than generalised concepts of ‘Te Ao Māori’ and ‘Mātauranga Māori’.
Ngāti Porou support the need for transformation in this area of law, noting that the status quo is inadequate and unacceptable. However, this Bill must be strengthened in order to achieve the transformation required.
Reading through the submission I am finding it difficult to be as definite as you about the content of the submission. The submission carefully sets out the background for the wish of Ngati Porou to continue to exercise Ngati Poroutanga over water/s in their rohe. It makes the point that they do not agree with generalised "Maori' concepts. They do support the need for change.
I agree. But isn’t that a real problem with 3Waters? Ngati Porou have their own tikanga, their own principles. They have brought that to the management of natural resources like the Waiapu river, but as BFOW says, in their 3 Waters entity, won’t their voice in regards to those very same resources, be diluted?
Why do you believe this is a problem? And why do we believe there is a problem and that we can have a 'solution' if one is needed. I am confident that in suggesting the boundaries of the entities way, way back this would have been raised then.
Are you 'clutching at straws' and 'putting up straw man arguments' for some reason?
I am confident that these issues if they come to anything will be dealt with in positive ways by grown up people. Ngati Porou have indicated as much in the concluding para quoted above.
ie
status quo is unacceptable
support the need for transformation
support the need for the Bill to be strengthened
I find your comment slightly paternalistic. Do you have the same concerns when new entities are set up in the Pakeha world? Don't we just accept that problems will be met when they arise, public bodies meetings act procedures and conflicts of interest registers will provide guidance if necessary etc.
Because this is precisely how powerful tribal interests overpower weaker ones. It's happening across Tāmaki Makaurau right now, and it is divisive and damaging to all people.
"Do you have the same concerns when new entities are set up in the Pakeha world?"
There is really no such thing as a 'pakeha world'. Pakeha are only rarely grouped together as a single homogenous people as Maori are. This is part of the injustice the crown continues to promulgate on Maori. Just look again at Tāmaki. Iwi fighting iwi through the courts to assert and challenge mana whenua status, all due to the crown failing to understand the complexities and tribal nature of Maori.
"I am confident that these issues if they come to anything will be dealt with in positive ways by grown up people."
I am not, and by way of example I point to the situation in Tāmaki between Maratuahu and Ngati Whatua, which is anything but 'grown up'.
What about when groups like Federated Farmers are either represented on a board or committee or a farming group is on a board that has an urban as well as farming role. Sure there are differences of opinion but the groups manage to get together and make the decision that they believe is best for the region, group, etc. Then there are the differences of opinions between people with different land uses.
I don't think the Crown is putting the entities together with the idea that there will be quarrels over mana, roles etc. They have put groups together in regions so that the particular concerns re water are able to be listened to. They would be far from expecting a uniform view. They are being entrusted with the role to work to find the best for the waters in the region. What is best for that region or part of a region may not be looked on as being the best for another region.
I do not know enough about the Auckland situation to comment and I suspect you do not either. I think you are commenting on some outward manifestation of a disagreement as it looks like today.
I have not read anything from you that this current outward manifestation has a historical basis and what this basis is. For example some overlapping rohe are due to the freeze on boundaries at the Treaty time perpetuating different boundaries, or not recognising that there may have been allegiances to other tribal groups outside the rohe and the situation is fluid……in other words you are putting a pakeha spin on what seems to be current history.
If say you lived in Belgium and had a role in Govt it would be the kiss of death if you did not understand the back story/history of the Flemish people and the Walloons. Even people who move there today learn about the two differing 'parts' of their country. It is not seen as a weakness to possibly have differing views.
Intermarriage between Flemish and Walloons is low. Nor do they clash. They keep themselves to themselves. The big exception is Brussels and its outlying districts, where the two cultures rub up against one another.
I would give your views & concerns a bit more credence if you were able to say……
Tāmaki between Maratuahu and Ngati Whatua 'and this will have had its genesis in the …….. of …….'.
I am not sure if both groups have had a treaty claim completed etc etc. The Water entity that these tribes belong to has other groups as well. If this fighting persists into a different situation ie the water situation there are enough Maori/people of mana who would work behind the scene to get the groups together to work something out or to say 'pull your head in' and be listened to.
Having had experience with Maori groups in two facets of my working life in two very different spheres heath and lands going back 30 or so years I can confidently say that the decisions that came out after representation was widened were streets ahead of those decisions that went before.
Something had to be done about water.
As long as the groups are able to settle down and do their work for a period of time then I foresee good things going forward. If this turns into a political football like education and health have at previous elections then we will be mired in some less than optimum arrangement that won't improve anything.
You appear to have a profoundly rose tinted view of iwi politics and how it is manipulated by the crown.
"I do not know enough about the Auckland situation to comment and I suspect you do not either."
I am close to the situation in Auckland, and I happen to know the situation between Tāmaki Collective iwi is prearious, and the government is culpable.
"I am not sure if both groups have had a treaty claim completed etc etc. The Water entity that these tribes belong to has other groups as well."
You strike right at the heart of one of the issues dividing Tāmaki iwi. Some have settled, some haven't. There is even division within individual iwi about this process.
"They have put groups together in regions so that the particular concerns re water are able to be listened to. "
Yes, but individual iwi are already engaged in this process with their local councils. It is inevitable that powerful elites will govern over those already doing the work.
"I am not sure if both groups have had a treaty claim completed etc etc."
Maratuahu is an iwi collective that is dominated by Hauraki power elites within Ngati Maru. They have used smaller iwi to gain a foothold in Tāmaki, and to assert their power to the detriment of iwi with much stronger mana whenua claims. This has all been aided and abetted by the crown, particularly under the last national government. It is a window into all that can go wrong when iwi groups are muscled into large collectives, particularly when substantial natural resources are involved.
Rose tinted or on the ground experience? I'm opting for on the ground experience as I stated before, or perhaps I am an optimist!
Having had experience with Maori groups in two facets of my working life in two very different spheres heath and lands going back 30 or so years I can confidently say that the decisions that came out after representation was widened were streets ahead of those decisions that went before.
The relatively small cadre of Noble Savage Paternalists, Critical Theory Cult members (and their [rather more numerous] opportunistic fellow-travellers) are nothing if not profoundly anti-democratic … but, you see, it's "all in a good cause" … and, after all, affluent upper-middle professionals “know best”.
So it's a great result if your side do it but it would be terrible if someone with different political ideas did the same?
You're behaving like those people who claim to be in favour of free speech only when the person is saying something they agree with. When they hear something they don't like they want them shut out of the conversation.
In this case what makes you think that those people on the right of New Zealand politics would do this? The only ones in favour of this sort of thing, at least in the last 50 or so years in our country, have been those who still think that Stalin and Mao were wonderful paragons of virtue.
Labour should do the same for other assets, such as KiwiRail.
The ACT party will have been salivating at the thought of the billions they could get by selling off water assets to foreign (probably mostly Chinese) companies when National give them a free hand to plunder the few remaining state assets when/if they win next year.
More political symbolism than anything though? You can just repeal the entrenching clause with a simple majority, then repeal the public ownership clause. I guess the point is to make the fuckers explicitly repeal public ownership protection if they want to privatize.
Maybe – but rushing it through under urgency, with no debate – highlights a strategy for a future right government, to do exactly the same thing. Either reversing this – or 'entrenching' their own legislation.
Rushing it through has also not resulted in any media coverage. As far as I can see, it's not covered in either the Herald or Stuff – so the press release from Sage that was linked. was the first I'd heard of it.
It's pretty difficult to regard something as symbolic, if no one knows about it.
National have already announced that they'd repeal 3 waters (you can believe them, or not – but it's a policy plank) – if this provision is embedded in the 3 waters legislation – it'll simply get repealed along with the rest.
No. It was covered up thread – by Sanctuary & Cricklewood.
It simply requires a 2-bites-to the-cherry process. First remove the clause requiring a super-majority (which only requires a majority), and then remove the legislation, which no longer has a super-majority clause.
There is, of course, the possibility that this prevention of sale with a super-majority clause, is not part of the 3 waters legislation – and is a separate Act on its own.
In which case, with the repeal of 3 waters (under a future right government), it would be an orphan. Preventing the sale of assets, by organizations which no longer own the asset, and potentially no longer exist.
If that is the case, I don’t think that the right government would cause even a ripple by repealing it.
It is worth noting that one of the features of 3 Waters is the entities ability to raise capital at a (supposed) lower premium….but that capital (debt) will need to be secured against the assets.
Ultimately it will need to be guaranteed by the Government (taxpayers) which shows the farce the whole reform is….the needed improvements should simply be funded directly by central gov and get rid of all the window-dressing costs.
They have actually fucked up the legislation,as the infrastructure cannot be used as a security against a loan,there were significant issues raised against the model by S&P, (the other agencies awaiting legislation b4 producing a note hence watch only).
This raises the questions of who is the owner,and who raises debt.
Very good point. The reason why govt borrows cheaper than everyone else is not because of their asset base – which as S&P realised cannot be used as security – but because of their sovereign ability to tax.
Reflecting on this, I might imagine the big funders might look at who is controlling these assets, setting the budgets under 3W legislation, and decide the risk is rather higher than they are comfortable with.
The big funders already declined housing corp,which is why it is now being funded directly out of the government books,(funders have long memories and NZ has already seen default by an SOE).
If the government ability to tax to pay the cost of debt is a thing, so is the providers capacity to charge to do the same.
So I suppose you are asking, if the party borrowing the money (and holding existing debt) is the one in charge of setting the price and collecting money.
The key part then is certainty, such as government guarantee.
PS If the infrastructure is not going to be ever sold, does that part matter?
No investor is going to lend to an entity where the ownership of the assets are unsure,and no rating agency will provide a rating where ownership is unsure.
Who owns the infrastructure,and who is responsible for the debt?
The debt will have to lie on the government books,without the assets.The entity whatever it is there is no placement ( local authority,SOE,company government department etc) significant problems with remedies such as tort,as it may not even exist.
Someones idea at a group think retreat,where the narrative is being spun to fit the thinking.There is no efficiency,and it is a cost plus model,that will always be searching for funding mostly for wages for the unemployable elite ( aka as diselected list MP'S )
I agree that a mechanism similar to roading under NZTA with costs/responsibilities split between local and government – would have been a much lower cost and less controversial solution.
No one is arguing that some councils need assistance – whether that's with expertise or funding – in order to effectively manage their water assets.
Some (Wellington comes to mind) appear to need to have national water infrastructure standards in place – since it has apparently been too easy for them to defer maintenance/replacement in favour of funding for more politically-driven projects.
It is difficult to see the logical reasoning behind the collection of assets into super-regional groupings, which have nothing to do with watersheds or other geographical features (one crosses the Cook Strait!); this seems to have been entirely driven by their co-governance ideology.
However, this solution of a NZ Water Authority (setting standards, co-funding major infrastructure, and supplying planning expertise to water-asset-owning local governments) would not have had the 'benefit' of applying the co-governance provisions of He puapua – which, it seems that Labour have signed up to, without campaigning on.
And, I suspect this kind of central-local government partnership, was what most people had in mind, when they read the provision in the Labour 2020 manifesto
“Labour will reform New Zealand’s drinking water
and waste water system and upgrade water
infrastructure to create jobs across the country.”
Anyone within a hundred kilometre radius of the consultation would have known asset removal and a new bureaucracy were coming.
You don't have to ask Groundswell. You could also ask Watercare, DairyNZ, DCANZ, Fonterra, Synlait, Massey Uni, AgResearch, anyone at Lincoln, LGNZ, Irrigation NZ, Ngai Tahu Holdings, and anyone else with a reasonable agribusiness presence in Wellington.
"Who would you trust long term to keep water assets locally owned?"
No-one, really. But the best way to at least beat the odds is to have the decisions made by those closest to democratic accountability, which is certainly not the new water entities.
"Who are the only people that invest in this country with a 1000-year return period?"
Who are these people? There is certainly no-one in this country with a 1000 year history of managing water resources as they currently exist.
It's hard to say they don't have the electoral mandate for 3 Waters reform, so all power to them.
Even John Key had to push through his 51% asset selloff in the teeth of a very large and well organised referendum, because it was done in full public and parliamentary view (now I'll just go back to my library and re-read the 1987 Labour manifesto 🙂 .
There were 300 000 signatures opposing asset sales. Wherein we got screwed royally, and now they're running down the assets to pay out to shareholders.
Opposition to 3 waters has been a highly politicised pack of press sound bites and barely concealed racist fearmongering signifying nothing but contempt for truth, Maori and current government. There is no comparison, only a simpering sycophantic press beholden to corporate plunder.
there are solid rationales for not supporting 3 waters, that have nothing to do with racism or anti-Labour sentiment. One of which is the insistence of Labour and the left that any opposition is morally bankrupt. This isn't so much seeding division, as throwing bucketloads of compost on the already thriving saplings.
It feels like third term Clark government in terms of contempt for the people. If Ardern's Labour were 8 years in, sure, try and get as much passed as possible. But 5 years in?
I don't disagree with your comments at all, but here's another angle. Any government wishing to achieve meaningful reform is constrained by a three year parliamentary term, which abbreviates consultation, the crafting of laws and the passage of those laws through the parliamentary process. I am opposed to the 3waters reform for a number of reasons, and no amount of time will necessarily change a governments ideological position, but a longer governance term would at least allow for better law making.
it's tricky. We can look at the UK as an example of the problems with a 5 year term for instance. If the NZ norm is three terms, imagine Nact being in power for 15 years.
I think there are better ways to mend democracy. Once would be to start a shift to participatory democracy. While I appreciate that Labour didn't have a lot of time (mainly because of the pandemic) to consult well on 3W, I think the problem is that Labour is ideologically opposed to such. They are old school neoliberalised, which means they're parental rather than sisterly. This is certainly how 3W has come across: 'we know what is best, we will figure how how to get you to behave the way we want'.
Luxon is working for the agribusiness lobby which has opposed every single piece of environmental management that this government put up. Unpriced unregulated water is the core profit centre of dairy, which in turn is our number one export.
I agree with you Weka. One of the issues is that the government has been portraying the situation as binary, so that those opposing 3 Waters must by default be in favour of the status quo, and therefore continuing the current uncoordinated shambles of water management.
However, the binary proposition is not at all accurate, and there are likely other viable options to achieve the goals of 3 Waters.
lots of things have become an uncoordinated shambles under neoliberalism. I haven't seen Labour taking responsibility for their part in that, but the issue is more that Labour decided what to do and then told us. Many of us could have predicted that trying to dictate such changes would be met with resistance. Why not bring people along instead?
barely concealed racist fearmongering signifying nothing but contempt for truth, Maori …
Spare me your wild-eyed bully-boy character assassination of a hefty majority of the New Zealand public you self-centered, self-righteous authoritarian prig. When you radically redefine terms like racist, weaponising them with a view to closing down all political debate around highly controversial major reforms then those terms rapidly lose all their force.
Oh and try not to confuse Corporate Iwi with Maori in general, sweetpea.
Oh and try not to confuse Corporate Iwi with Maori in general, sweetpea
And now trying to comment on things Maori. The idea that there are a whole bunch of Maori who do not or cannot whakapapa back to their eponymous ancestor or know where to go to get to know this is really a myth. There just are not Iwi and the rest. Groupings had to set themselves up if they wanted to have Treaty issues identified recognised and settled. These same groupings received any settlement monies.
Ngai Tahu for instance had set themselves up years before their claim and had school/university scholarships for the children/young adults from very early on. No doubt they fall into your category of 'Corporate Iwi'.
This invective or poison pen cannot be good to write, it is certainly horrible to read such bitterness.
As I wrote earlier up the thread, the government need to give their opponents a lot more moving targets to divide their focus. If the election is focused on this heavily 'politicised' issue Labour will lose the election
The government has consulted to death with local government, and there is no part of the mandate for the legislation that needed to be provided by local government.
lol. This is like people who argue that NZ farming is the best in the world for climate. It's a very low bar (and it's a stupid comparison).
If NZ has a better form of poor democracy than most other countries doesn't mean that we don't have a poor form of democracy. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
It was entirely silent on co-governance – which has emerged as a significant government policy plank.
I really don’t think that anyone envisaged removal of water assets from local government, multiple layers of bureaucracy and co-governance – from the above policy statement.
It was entirely silent on co-governance – which has emerged as a significant government policy plank.
Not quite, although it was not explicitly stead and spelt out, the seeds & spirit were already there, of course:
Our Māori Manifesto sets out our commitment to continuing on the partnership path with Māori and looks to take bolder steps to create the change we need to finally realise the promise of Te Tiriti – Governance, Rangatiratanga and equality for all.
I think Labour set out a principle there Incognito, they don't actually say what they would do. I don’t think it is realistic for voters to think “what if commitment to partnership means giving Maori soverign authority over water? what if they include geothermal water and coastal water, when this legislation is suppose to be about water supply?”
This is an interesting question posed by Chris Trotter. Why are Labour prepared to die in a ditch for this piece of legislation?
It also seems now it is five waters as coastal water and geothermal water has been added to the legislation. Even Megan Woods Minister of Energy was surprized to hear about geothermal.
Why does this legislation need to be rushed through under urgency?
I have no idea where the quoted text comes from because it is not in the piece by Trotter that you linked to!? In any case, it complete and utter BS because to state, even hypothetically, “partnership means giving Maori soverign [sic] authority” is the worst kind of counter-propaganda one could think of.
Trotter has dug up a hill so that he can bark at it and scent-mark by lifting up his Right leg. His only achievement is adding more confusion to the pile and he should know better but yet he does what he does, which begs the question as to why he does it? Is he a useful idiot, a pawn, or a puppet master?
The problem with that bit of manifesto fluff is that it could mean almost anything in practice. And worse still govt media funding rules ensure there can be no public debate on the topic that is not pre-approved by the govt.
What New Zealanders almost certainly did not sign up for however, is the separate development path this Maori caucus are taking us down.
I can link that ‘fluff’ to Three Waters, retrospectively, of course.
I was not aware that NZ media couldn’t discuss legislation that’s under (active) consideration by Parliament. In any case, I see plenty of ‘debate’.
Anybody who argues that Three Waters came out of nowhere is either naïve and ignorant or takes their cues from propagandist such as Groundswell and other subversive parties who scream theft, stealing, and secrecy without transparency and consultation.
For the record, I am quite uncomfortable with the bilateral Pākehā-Māori dichotomy that seems to dominate all discourse and even the hapless PR efforts coming from Government.
“The Government is not proposing co-governance. Regional planning committees will have a legal minimum of two Māori representatives. Local councils and Māori in a region can then agree on whether they want more.”
So says David Parker in relation to the reforming of the RMA. He talks about resisting the pressure for the 50:50 representations.
Will his caution transfer into the 3Waters? What if consultation with Iwi was reduced but still important?
"The Review, beginning in mid-2017, ran in parallel to the latter stages of the Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water, which was set up following the campylobacter outbreak in 2016. Up to 5500 people were ill as a result and four people are thought to have died from associated causes"
"The Three Waters Review was published in January 2019"
"In 2019, the Sixth Labour Government announced plans for regulatory changes in response to the Three Waters Review"
"On 28 January 2020, Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, released Cabinet papers and minutes setting out intentions for reform of service delivery and funding arrangements for the three waters services nationwide"
Why do you not quote the following line out of the Wiki article.
"Details of the proposed reforms were announced in October 2021". That is when we first found out what they had in mind. It is surely not a coincidence that it was long after the 2020 election and until then almost no members of the general public were aware of what was being planned.
October 2021 was the 'Launch of nationwide programme'. It pays to read the entire piece and as stated: "In 2019, the Sixth Labour Government announced plans for regulatory changes in response to the Three Waters Review"
If the only thing that you can actually point to, prior to the 2020 election is Mahuta's paper to the Cabinet – which is the most impenetrable bureaucratese – and certainly not understandable by ordinary voters – I don't think that you have a strong case for 'everyone knew'
Yes. People knew that some kind of water reform was on the cards – in some areas. They certainly didn't have any inkling that it would involve mandatory removal of water assets from local councils, implementation of a vast new bureaucracy (with minimal democratic control), and co-governance.
None of which was part of the Labour manifesto in 2020. Don't you think that such a radical change *should* have been put to the public?
IIRC – it was only after the election that Mahua revealed that she'd lied to the local Councils, and there was no option for them to 'opt out'
And, there was certainly no co-governance outlined prior to the 2020 election. Whether you believe Willie Jackson & Ardern that this wasn't deliberate – is up to you.
"Councils had been given the right to opt out of the reforms, but after councils largely opposed the reforms as proposed, Mahuta last week made them mandatory, saying they were a "quantum shift in the way water services are delivered" which would require every council to be involved"
Oh. Please link to the information prior to the election in 2020 – where Labour proposed to remove water assets from Council control, and implement co-governance within the resulting water ownership agencies.
I know you can't – because Labour was very careful not to spell out the specifics of the proposal. He puapua, the co-governance agenda, was carefully hidden, not only from the public, but from their coalition partner. Labour never released any information about how they proposed to upgrade water systems and infrastructure – until well after the election – you'd think if it was such a "quantum shift" they'd have campaigned on the change.
Your own quote shows that Mahuta lied to Councils about their ability to opt out.
Your first link is only to the establishment of the (entirely uncontroversial) water regulation agency. The one which National, at least (I don't know what ACT's policy is) have committed to retain. It has nothing to do with shifting water asset control away from local bodies, or with co-governance – the two highly controversial aspects of the 3 (now, apparently 5) waters legislation.
I have linked to the 'information prior to the election in 2020' which includes "the local government sector, water stakeholders and iwi/Māori will have ample opportunity to consider the detail of the Bill"
The Minster did not lie. The link explains why it became mandatory.
Water assets have not been removed from council control.
"Councils will collectively own the water services entities providing services for their district, on behalf of their communities"
It's not 5 waters and Co-governance is not new. The previous Key National govt had a number of co-governance arrangements, so does the Christchurch council for example. imo those who oppose co-governance, like the opposition that had no issue with it under National, are racebaiting.
Seymour says most New Zealanders want to see Māori culture and language thrive and past wrongs addressed, but he doesn’t believe that is what UNDRIP is trying to achieve.
“UNDRIP is fundamentally at odds with a democratic nation state. It says Indigenous people have the right to fully participle in the affairs of a nation state, which we agree with.
“Then it says they have the right to opt out and effectively run a separate jurisdiction,” he says.
“The whole of UNDRIP is founded on that fundamental contradiction.”
And frankly this is core problem a large majority of New Zealanders have when they see the words 'de-colonisation' and 'co-governance'. The only document in the public domain that spelled out what what this might mean in practice is Hepuapu – yet while the govt denied it was policy to our faces, it proceeded to implement important aspects of it anyway.
Then if anyone objects to this wholesale re-writing of the New Zealand constitutional foundation, and the renaming of government departments and placenames, all with zero consultation much less democratic accountability – we are openly abused as racists, red-necks or white supremacists.
Voters might not understand all the nuances – but we know when we are being gaslighted.
"This is recommendable and laudable because we cannot make decisions collectively if/when we don’t understand each other."
Its laudable and recommended not so much because we "dont understand each other" but rather because those driving the change out of the public gaze have yet to explain the practicalities of their position and how it is supposed to operate in a democracy….
The authors said "disappointed at coverage of the report being focused primarily on what are perceived as “bigger controversial ideas” and not necessarily on the wide range of proposals within the document"
"the group’s role was to put down a number of ideas that would enable, or encourage, further discussion.
“It was never meant to be government policy by any means,” she says. “It was meant to be more of a conversation starter.’’
Which does not explain why so many important parts of it have become become the defacto direction of this govt's policy with remarkably little discussion.
That’s textbook reductionism and binary logic resulting in false dichotomies and other flawed logic.
He Puapua does not exist in isolation nor does it draw sharp borders. Essentially, you’re arguing that this Government is ignoring its Treaty obligations “with remarkably little discussion”. Of course, this is nonsense.
He Puapua does not exist in isolation nor does it draw sharp borders. Essentially, you’re arguing that this Government is ignoring its Treaty obligations
He Puapua is not about the Treaty of Waitangi obligations. It is a response to the UNDRIP agreement, whose origins lay in the need to address the obvious vulnerability of isolated, barely uncontacted groups of indigenous people who lacked effective access to civil rights and legal status. This was, and remains a worthy and legitimate cause.
The problem is that Maori are arguably not an indigenous people in a legal sense. The primary effect of the Treaty of Waitangi was to give them full status and civil rights as citizens of the British Empire almost two centuries ago; a status subsequently transferred to the Crown.
As Seymour points out the UNDRIP agreement attempts to unravel this status by allowing Maori to rip up the Treaty of Waitangi, opt out of their citizenship of the New Zealand state, and set up a separate jurisdiction. This might well be stating the case bluntly, but is consistent with the tenor and direction of the not only the more vocal Maori ethno-nationalists, but stated Maori Party policy and public statements.
He Puapua is not about the Treaty of Waitangi obligations.
Only in a reductionist binary world view could this be accurate and you are confirming my previous comment.
A Declaration plan is also an opportunity to work in partnership with Māori and report on how the Government is fulfilling its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its corresponding aspirations in the Declaration.
The original plan was for Council's to opt in or out. When it became obvious the whole scheme was wildly unpopular, the Minister reneged. I guess you’re allowed to break a promise when your golden idea is tanking.
So, first Mahuta said Councils could opt out, and then, when it became apparent that many of them wanted to do just that, she reversed herself and said it was mandatory. That's a lie in my book. Or does 'optional' mean 'so long as you choose they way I want you to'?
I said control, not ownership. The two are quite different (according to the 3 waters proponents … there are different perspectives).
The whole argument for 3 waters is that the proponents believe that Councils can't be trusted with water infrastructure. That's why it's being removed from their control.
Winston Peters has claimed consistently that he had no knowledge of He puapua. And that's been confirmed by Willie Jackson – in a rather smug self-congratulatory comment.
I've made no comment on whether co-governance is new or not (again, opinions vary). I have said that Labour did not make it clear that the new water entities would be co-governed – before the 2020 election. Still waiting for your evidence to prove this wrong.
5 waters. Really. Now including coastal and geothermal water – rolled in at virtually the last moment.
He makes the point that "He Puapua was presented to the then Minister of Maori Development, Nanaia Mahuta, in November 2019.", but that it was not at any stage put to Cabinet prior to the 2020 election. Trotter states that "Had Peters known of its existence, he would have fallen upon He Puapua as a gift from God." Which of course he would have.
"the prime minister insisted that was not the case.
“I’ve read the legislation, it does not change the scope. It’s a reference to the impact that if you pump for instance wastewater into the ocean, it has an impact on coastal water,” Jacinda Ardern said on Tuesday.
But she acknowledged that part of the bill could be clarified"
"The vast majority of councils have expressed some opposition to the reforms and Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta has been considering councils' feedback after consultation with the sector closed early this month.
Councils' opposition ranges from concerns about the management model of the entities and calls for the reforms to be delayed, through to total opposition to the legislative changes.
Having considered the feedback, Mahuta today confirmed councils would be required to take part in the reforms, with all entities to be operational by 1 July 2024.
"This is an all-in approach that will require legislation and it will require every council to be a part of a quantum shift in the way that water services are delivered.
The only "circumstance" which changed was the Councils saying – 'no'.
Mahuta was unable to accept this, and reneged on the explicit and implicit understanding that they could opt out.
Now, maybe she was foolish to give them that option. Or believed that she could effectively sway (not to say bribe) them to support her proposal. Or any other combination of factors which made her believe that no councils would take up that option.
But, her reaction when they did, made it clear that it was never a 'real' choice. She lied, when she said that it was.
Yes. The Councils saw through the the insulting and patronising $3.5m advertising campaign (which was cut short after invention by the PSC), the nonsense of the WICS modelling and all the other disingenuous bs and said 'no thanks'.
I'm not so sure Mahuta lied, or whether she just badly misread the room.
Nope. Not covered – the links you provided don't show anything like what you are claiming.
Specifically:
Link to a pre-2020 election statement from Labour that they proposed to remove water assets from Council control into 4 regional agencies.
Link to a pre-2020 election statement from Labour that those regional water agencies would be co-governed.
They knew that both of those choices were highly controversial (or had the potential to be so) – and deliberately didn't campaign on them.
I might also ask for a link for pre-2020 election statement that the shift in control of water assets to the regional agencies would be mandatory (rather than optional). But we've already established that Mahuta reversed her policy over this – well after the election – so you certainly won't find one.
The fact that you can't provide them, gives me excellent reason to believe that you've just made this story up – because it suits your 'Labour is always justified' narrative.
Feel free (as I can see that you do) to believe whatever you want.
But, you haven't convinced anyone else.
I feel that this conversation is just about played out.
Links are included in the posts. Not my problem that you choose not to accept them. That's entirely up to you. It was never about convincing anyone. The thread was finished a while back, you just carried it on because it was all about what you thought.
"The one which National, at least (I don't know what ACT's policy is) have committed to retain"
Which is what?
"they're going to repeal and replace. With what? It's a very simple question—a question that has been posed for four years. What are they going to replace it with? They have no ideas. They have no policies. That is not a debating point..that is a matter of fact"
I'm talking about the, entirely uncontroversial, "Taumata Arowai", tasked with establishing, monitoring and enforcing water quality standards (taking over from the MoH).
That was the bill from mid 2020 that you linked to. Nothing to do with the subsequent 3 waters legislation (well, apart from both being 'water')
National have repeatedly committed to retaining this – and practical solutions – as outlined below. What they don't support is a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy, and a co-governance model – which means that the new water agencies have nothing to do with natural watersheds (one crosses the Cook Strait, for heavens sake!) – but are constructed around iwi – i.e. accidents of history, rather than geography)
National has supported the new water regulator, Taumata Arowai, and we would back practical solutions like co-investment and funding partnerships with central government, and incentivising collaboration between councils. But we just can’t support change being forced on communities.
We are going around in circles here, it's been covered in previous posts.
Taumata Arowai and councils will be working together.
"We will work collaboratively across Aotearoa including with whānau hapū and iwi Māori, Crown entities (such as the Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Health and Department of Internal Affairs), public health units (PHUs) along with regional, city and district councils, drinking water suppliers, water management companies and all people of Aotearoa"
As previously noted National do not have any solutions, they have already walked back on co-funding.
"Let's take their point of view that was stated today—that they're going to repeal and replace. With what? It's a very simple question—a question that has been posed for four years. What are they going to replace it with? They have no ideas. They have no policies. That is not a debating point, Mr Speaker; that is a matter of fact. As I was going through the first reading speeches, I came up with an absolute doozy from Matt Doocey—a Doocey doozy. He promised in his first reading speech that the National Party will co-fund this required investment. He said it once and once only. He contributed to the second reading debate, he contributed to the committee of the whole House, and he contributed again today. Did he say it? Did he say it—my foot. Someone got in his ear and said that what he had just committed the National Party to was a $92.5 billion-dollar bill, while, at the time, they were proposing $11billion worth of tax cuts. Even Paul Goldsmith knows that one doesn't add up. The fact of the matter here is that the National Party are left wanting. I'll take the opportunity to give the ACT Party credit. I don't agree with them ever but at least they come up with policies. At least they come to the table with an alternative"
If you can't see the difference between a crown agency regulating standards (Taumata Arowai) – and ones (new co-governed authorities) which remove control of water from local bodies – then there is, indeed, little point in discussing further.
Taumata Arowai won't be working with Councils at all – once the new authorities are set up under the 3 waters legislation, Councils will no longer have any control or responsibility for 3 waters infrastructure and/or delivery. Management of those 'assets' (some more valuable than others) will pass into the hands of these new agencies.
Still waiting on the information that Labour released pre the 2020 election, outlining their actual programme (co-governed bodies taking control of water infrastructure assets from local government).
"the information that Labour released pre the 2020 election" Already covered in previous posts, including links.
Will there be a loss of (local) control/influence over water assets/services?
"Water services will remain in the ownership of the community they are serving. Continued public ownership of three waters water services and infrastructure"
You really do seem to be struggling with understanding the difference between ownership and control.
Once the 4 territorial water agencies are in place Taumata Arowai will work with them. Since the Councils will no longer be controlling or responsible for water infrastructure (in the ideal world that Mahuta apparently envisages). That is the entire point of 3 waters!
I have seen some really disturbing stuff of drones dropping grenades on Russian soldiers in trenches, and the soldiers not even reacting to the grenade explosions.
The theory is that they basically have hypothermia so bad that they are unable to respond, or perhaps already dead from hypothermia.
It isn't even winter over there yet, but the conditions are getting very cold already, and a lot of the Russian soldiers just don't have the gear to survive in those conditions. On the other hand, the Ukrainian soldiers are being supplied truck-loads of winter gear from the west.
The other thing is that the Ukrainians get regular rest and rotation whereas the Russian soldiers, not so much. So the Russians can be in freezing condition in wet clothes indefinitely. Sucks to be them.
It seems highly likely that 10s of thousands of Russian soldiers could freeze to death over the winter.
It seems highly likely that 10s of thousands of Russian soldiers could freeze to death over the winter.
They'll continue sacrificing conscripts to hold ground while they re-group, train and resupply their regular army in preparation for the spring offensive.
The newshub piece opens with the insinuation that Russia has escalated things by hitting a NATO country with a missile. It had been known for over a week that this was in fact a Ukrainian missile. Shocking reporting.
Now awaiting Generals January and February to arrive,as NH snow mass starts accumulating,Energy demand starts to increase and electricity tightness arrives.
Opinion piece by Russian politician Leonid Gozman.
Everyone, except perhaps Putin himself, understands that his regime is nearing its end. At the very least, discussions about the country’s future are being conducted in Russia as if neither Putin nor his system still existed. The question is: How exactly will the regime collapse?
Watching luxon on Q+A ,he says employment levels are unsustainable, ie:we need more unemployed, then in the next breath says national will sanction the unemployed as we have to many unemployed????
Fuckers said it with a straight 😑
Tame is carving him up on his bullshit around his tax cut back peddling, gold
There is some acrobatic logic amongst the ruling class lately that is for sure.
• Reserve Bank (to paraphrase): ‘unemployment must rise to help combat inflation’
• Employers: ‘drastic labour shortage, more migrant workers urgently needed!’ of course they are talking about cheap labour, and they don’t want Labour’s median wage requirement to apply.
The Natzos have demonised dirty filthy bennies since…oh I don’t know…John Key’s mum was on a widows benefit? No, it was actually from the Rogernomics era that they really waded in, continuing with market rents for state housing, paid tertiary, MOAB, ECA, and Jenny Shipley’s “dob in a bludger” TV ads.
The spin off from employers wanting immigration and residency rules relaxed is that NZ workers who have just rediscovered their class power and have organised for reasonable increases will be on the back foot again.
I don't think you're going to get support from the Left for this.
They are (or should be) delighted with Luxon's foot-in-mouth gaffes – and want the NP to keep him for as long as possible.
Economics admittedly are beyond my comprehension. But I can't figure out why Luxon says we need more unemployed and at the same time NZ should open the doors to thousands of immigrants. Does Luxon ever have any human empathy to those who are made unemployed, who had been working and earning and paying their way and living their lives to then find themselves on a benefit, trying to make do on a lesser income.
It actually was ironic to see ordinary, everyday people out shopping, getting some good deals, this weekend, despite Adrian Orr wanting us to spend less. He and the well off may now buy a $30 bottle of wine instead of a $40 bottle but their "less spending" still enables them to have a very very comfortable lifestyle. Perhaps this week I shall buy a packet of wine biscuits instead of mint creams.
You have got right into one of the key contradictions in the NZ National Party/Reserve Bank/Employers position on un/employment.
Employers have counted on a low wage economy for many years, since 1991 in fact. With COVID public health measures which saved thousands of lives, the migrant tap was turned off. Businesses large and small have had to cough up decent rates and fairer treatment when workers get organised, or are just in demand, and they do not like it one little bit.
I'm not an economist either, nor do I agree with Luxon at all, but the rhetoric behind needing more immigration is that the NZ workforce is essentially tapped out, so NZ needs more workers generally. In addition to measuring unemployment, Stats NZ also measure employment via the employment rate and it's currently at record highs, so there's some truth to that. However, more migrants also create jobs (since they have to eat, be housed, clothed etc) as well as fill jobs, so mostly Luxon's rhetoric is relying on migrants displacing Kiwis.
More migrant labour increases the GDP/aggregate demand by population increase. Orr says he wants a 1% decline in the total GDP to diminish inflation.
Is no one in National capable of discussing the importance of increasing productivity per person via investment in capital equipment (crop harvesting/machine milking)?
The upward pressure on wages is the best we have seen in decades.
This has also put pressure on businesses to invest in robotics rather than keep propping up crap jobs. Great to see McDonalds go full automated ordering. Most supermarkets are converting away from cashiers. More dairy farms are going full robotic. More orchards are investing in stronger mechanisation – as they should have for decades.
Death to shit jobs.
Luxon just wants the rent off the back of workers. Cheap.
On that topic.
I was in the supermarket last night (not my usual, but a poncy new one in an inner-city suburb). Took my purchases to the self-checkout, and was interested to observe the two checkout operaters having a nice chat to each other, since all customers were using the self-check options (the store layout guides you that way – you have to make a special effort to divert to a staffed point).
However, the supermarket still needed to have staff on duty at the self-check – both to fix the issues with the equipment (mis-scanning, false readings, weight of produce issues, etc.) [every customer had one or more of these while I was checking out my groceries] and (presumably) to act as a deterrent against people rorting the system (not scanning expensive items, etc. – or just walking out the door). Presumably they also have to have live staff to sign off on things like alcohol purchases.
So, no need to checkout staff, but still need for staff to fix the poorly operating automated systems, and security staff (not a job I'd want…. in the current climate)
I really don't follow this as a argument but will say that the staff supervising the self check outs at my local are those who have years of experience, eyes in the back of their heads and you'd be most unwise to do anything there to get their attention in a bad way. In my supermarket the aisles and self scanners seem to work together so that if queues at one of the other get a bit long the customers are diverted.
Both the supermarkets I go to I have not seen a lessening of staff overall as a result of self scanning.
File it under weird and wonderful thoughts of Rimmer, the hologram.
ACT will require every school in New Zealand to fill out an electronic attendance register, which would be accessible by the Ministry of Education.
Schools would be required to record which students have not attended school on a particular day and whether that absence was justified or unjustified. The Ministry will publish daily attendance in real-time, building a national focus on the issue, ACT said.
For a proponent of small, invisible government not intruding in our lives, Seymour has a funny way of showing it.
Of course we know what this is about. It's about constant surveillance of (electronic registers), and pressure upon (fines), Maori and PI peoples until they start acting a bit more white.
That's interesting. AFAIK – schools all do this now. Certainly as a parent, I can see the online attendance record of my teen – which records several different kinds of absence: justified (i.e. sick or at an off-site educational, sporting or cultural event), unjustified (not there for any other reason), late (didn't turn up on time), and overseas posting (not on holiday – but where kids remain on the roll while the family is posted overseas (military, diplomatic, etc.)).
The MoE require schools to record this data (I know this, because I had a long debate with the school over what a cultual event was – and whether my kid (attending the event) was a justified or an unjustified absence – and eventally had to go to the MoE for a ruling.)
I had *assumed* that the schools were reporting this to MoE – though possibly not daily – but, at least each term. Perhaps they aren't.
Statistics are reported on a school-wide basis – so no individual kids are identifiable.
I actually think that – if the MoE don't have this information – they need it.
And, it seems, that most schools are providing this – and have been doing so electronically, since 2020. Initially to measure the impact of Covid, and latterly to measure the long term effect of Covid on attendance rates
In the reporting to date – I understood that the only figures they had were the raw in class/not in class ones. Which astounded me. Since my local school certainly has the detailed ones, and I understood they were reporting them.
It would be useful to have some clarity from the MoE over what data they are currently receiving. And, whether the issue is that not all schools are providing this.
In order to know whether there is an issue with attendance, they need to tease out the ones who are sick or at a kapa haka festival, or sports tournament or performing in a musical – from those who are not at school for 'unjustified' reasons.
Seymour's Party says in its education policy, "The Ministry of Education will be greatly reduced in its size." Those who are there will be administering the voucher education system which will be the basis of or organisation of schooling.
I guess there'll be office workers doing all the stuff around attendance at school including the "on-the-spot fines." Mind you Act might have it that the bureaucracy for that will be tendered out to private contractors.
In our city that probably means that the company which has the contract from the council to do with dogs, registration, strays and so on, will deal with kids not getting to school. That probably would fairly sum up the Act attitude to non-attendance at school.
It would seem that 'fines' would be triggered by 30% non-attendance. The 'spot' business, means that it doesn't have to go to court (which is currently required for a truancy case, before a penalty can be imposed).
ACT would change the Education and Training Act to allow the Ministry of Education to introduce an infringement notice regime for truancy. They would ensure police could work with schools on truants and take children they see out of school during school hours to either the school or home.
ACT also proposed a traffic light system for unjustified attendance at schools. At the red setting, more than 30 per cent truant, the student would be referred to the Ministry of Education, which would decide whether to fine parents and/or refer the matter to police.
Schools would also receive funding to deal with poor attendance, weighted through the Equity Index so schools with more vulnerable student populations would receive more funding.
The funds would come from the $38.5 million spent annually on truancy services.
What I was actually expecting from ACT, was sanction on the benefit (and/or Working for Families payments) for parents whose kids don't attend school and/or intervention by State Housing agencies for resident parents whose kids don't attend school.
While I might not the sharpest knife in the drawer, what I'm getting from this Stuff article is GPs through Corporate Tend, are offering virtual medical services for $51 a consultation, where you can have a virtual consult on the hoof so to speak! I stand to be corrected if I am wrong in this regard.
There are many Kiwis who are deaf myself included, so this type of service would not be suitable, as face to face interaction in every day life is very important for those of us with various disabilities, particularly deafness, while at the same time also telling a GP a lot about their patient’s health which I doubt can be successfully achieved in a virtual situation.'
I hope this new trend is optional, because IMO medicine has no place in the corporate world, such as that which is being offered here, or vice versa!
It is not a matter of either/or, but of both/and, i.e., there’s a place for both, side-by-side, which will free up precious resources, ideally and hopefully.
You might like reading this article in the New Zealand Medical Journal:
Mary_a, Just a personal tale of online consulting.
Our son has a condition which was misdiagnosed by a Gold Coast surgeon.
However, after talking with our son by 'phone about members of the family who had died early, said surgeon opted to send the video of the operation of the bowel folds, to a specialist in Sydney.
Grant was then in a tele conference with the Gold Coast surgeon and the Sydney Specialist, who diagnosed life threatening growths which had to be removed each year, before they become cancerous.
This practise of mixed face to face telephone and online consults has been used successfully in Australia for years, at least ten to my knowledge, both public and private services.
Face to face where it would not work, though It does lessen visits for frail patients .
Thanks Mary-a, there is an app which changes speech to written text for the deaf, so Grant tells me.?? I don't know more, but the internet may have more info. Cheers and thanks for your good wishes.
A recent side benefit of the online consult, was that a colleague was able to record her online consultation with a specialist. Which meant she could re-play it later, and make sure she had the correct information, as well as sharing it with her daughter (making sure the family had the correct info as well).
Really useful – as it's common for information to just be lost, misunderstood, or even just not heard at all, in what is sometimes a tense and difficult discussion.
She was born 25 years ago today in North Shore hospital. Her eyes were closed tightly shut, her mouth was silently moving. The whole theatre was all quiet intensity as they marked her a 2 on the APGAR test. A one-minute eternity later, she was an 8. The universe was ...
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park in collaboration with members from our Skeptical Science team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Is Antarctica gaining land ice? ...
Images of US students (and others) protesting and setting up tent cities on US university campuses have been broadcast world wide and clearly demonstrate the growing rifts in US society caused by US policy toward Israel and Israel’s prosecution of … Continue reading → ...
Barrie Saunders writes – Dear Paul As the new Minister of Media and Communications, you will be inundated with heaps of free advice and special pleading, all in the national interest of course. For what it’s worth here is my assessment: Traditional broadcasting free to air content through ...
Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its arguments for such a bold reform. ...
Peter Dunne writes – The great nineteenth British Prime Minister, William Gladstone, once observed that “the first essential for a Prime Minister is to be a good butcher.” When a later British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, sacked a third of his Cabinet in July 1962, in what became ...
Ele Ludemann writes – New Zealanders had the OECD’s second highest tax increase last year: New Zealanders faced the second-biggest tax raises in the developed world last year, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says. The intergovernmental agency said the average change in personal income tax ...
We all know something’s not right with our elections. The spread of misinformation, people being targeted with soundbites and emotional triggers that ignore the facts, even the truth, and influence their votes.The use of technology to produce deep fakes. How can you tell if something is real or not? Can ...
This video includes conclusions of the creator climate scientist Dr. Simon Clark. It is presented to our readers as an informed perspective. Please see video description for references (if any). This year you will be lied to! Simon Clark helps prebunk some misleading statements you'll hear about climate. The video includes ...
It is all very well cutting the backrooms of public agencies but it may compromise the frontlines. One of the frustrations of the Productivity Commission’s 2017 review of universities is that while it observed that their non-academic staff were increasing faster than their academic staff, it did not bother to ...
Buzz from the Beehive Two speeches delivered by Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters at Anzac Day ceremonies in Turkey are the only new posts on the government’s official website since the PM announced his Cabinet shake-up. In one of the speeches, Peters stated the obvious: we live in a troubled ...
1. Which of these would you not expect to read in The Waikato Invader?a. Luxon is here to do business, don’t you worry about thatb. Mr KPI expects results, and you better believe itc. This decisive man of action is getting me all hot and excitedd. Melissa Lee is how ...
…it has a restricted jurisdiction which must not be abused: it is not an inquisitionNOTE – this article was published before the High Court ruled that Karen Chhour does not have to appear before the Waitangi Tribunal Gary Judd writes – The High Court ...
Lindsay Mitchell writes – One of reasons Oranga Tamariki exists is to prevent child neglect. But could the organisation itself be guilty of the same?Oranga Tamariki’s statistics show a decrease in the number and age of children in care. “There are less children ...
David Farrar writes: Graeme Edgeler wrote in 2017: In the first five years after three strikes came into effect 5248 offenders received a ‘first strike’ (that is, a “stage-1 conviction” under the three strikes sentencing regime), and 68 offenders received a ‘second strike’. In the five years prior to ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has surprised everyone with his ruthlessness in sacking two of his ministers from their crucial portfolios. Removing ministers for poor performance after only five months in the job just doesn’t normally happen in politics. That’s refreshing and will be extremely ...
TL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the two days to 6:06am on Thursday, April 25:Politics: PM Christopher Luxon has set up a dual standard for ministerial competence by demoting two National Cabinet ministers while leaving also-struggling ...
Hi,Today I mainly want to share some of your thoughts about the recent piece I wrote about success and failure, and the forces that seemingly guide our lives. But first, a quick bit of housekeeping: I am doing a Webworm popup in Los Angeles on Saturday May 11 at 2pm. ...
It is hard to see what Melissa Lee might have done to “save” the media. National went into the election with no public media policy and appears not to have developed one subsequently. Lee claimed that she had prepared a policy paper before the election but it had been decided ...
Open access notablesIce acceleration and rotation in the Greenland Ice Sheet interior in recent decades, Løkkegaard et al., Communications Earth & Environment:In the past two decades, mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated, partly due to the speedup of glaciers. However, uncertainty in speed derived from satellite products ...
Buzz from the Beehive A statement from Children’s Minister Karen Chhour – yet to be posted on the Government’s official website – arrived in Point of Order’s email in-tray last night. It welcomes the High Court ruling on whether the Waitangi Tribunal can demand she appear before it. It does ...
Mr Bombastic:Ironically, the media the academic experts wanted is, in many ways, the media they got. In place of the tyrannical editors of yesteryear, advancing without fear or favour the interests of the ruling class; the New Zealand news media of today boasts a troop of enlightened journalists dedicated to ...
It's hard times try to make a livingYou wake up every morning in the unforgivingOut there somewhere in the cityThere's people living lives without mercy or pityI feel good, yeah I'm feeling fineI feel better then I have for the longest timeI think these pills have been good for meI ...
In 1974, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Nixon, finding that the President was not a King, but was subject to the law and was required to turn over the evidence of his wrongdoing to the courts. It was a landmark decision for the rule ...
Every day now just seems to bring in more fresh meat for the grinder.In their relentlessly ideological drive to cut back on the “excessive bloat” (as they see it) of the previous Labour-led government, on the mountains of evidence accumulated in such a short period of time do not ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Megan Valére SosouMarket gardening site of the Itchèléré de Itagui agricultural cooperative in Dassa-Zoumè (Image credit: Megan Valère Sossou) For the residents of Dassa-Zoumè, a city in the West African country of Benin, choosing between drinking water and having enough ...
Buzz from the Beehive Melissa Lee – as may be discerned from the screenshot above – has not been demoted for doing something seriously wrong as Minister of ...
Morning in London Mother hugs beloved daughter outside the converted shoe factory in which she is living.Afternoon in London Travelling writer takes himself and his wrist down to A&E, just to be sure. Read more ...
Mike Grimshaw writes – The recent announcement of the University Advisory Group, chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, makes very clear where the Government’s focus and priorities lie. The remit of the Advisory Group is that Group members will consider challenges and opportunities for improvement in the university sector including: ...
Eric Crampton writes – The Reserve Bank of New Zealand desperately wants to find reasons to have workstreams in climate change. It makes little sense. They’ve run another stress test on the banks looking to see if they could find a prudential regulation case. They couldn’t. They ...
Rob MacCullough writes – Pundits from the left and the right are arguing that National’s Fast Track Bill that is designed to speed up infrastructure decisions could end up becoming mired in a cesspool of corruption. Political commentator ...
Looking at the headlines this morning it’s hard to feel anything other than pessimistic about the future of humanity.Note that I’m not speaking about the future of mankind, but the survival of our humanity. The values that we believe in seem to be ebbing away, by the day.Perhaps every generation ...
Swabbing mixed breed baby chicks to test for avian influenzaUh oh. Bird flu – often deadly to humans – is not only being transmitted from infected birds to dairy cows, but is now travelling between dairy cows. As of last Friday, Bloomberg News reports, there were 32 American dairy herds ...
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
What is it with the mining industry? Its not enough for them to pillage the earth - they apparently can't even be bothered getting resource consent to do so: The proponent behind a major mine near the Clutha River had already been undertaking activity in the area without a ...
Photo # 1 I am a huge fan of Singapore’s approach to housing, as described here two years ago by copying and pasting from The ConversationWhat Singapore has that Australia does not is a public housing developer, the Housing Development Board, which puts new dwellings on public and reclaimed land, ...
Buzz from the Beehive Reactions to news of the government’s readiness to make urgent changes to “the resource management system” through a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) suggest a balanced approach is being taken. The Taxpayers’ Union says the proposed changes don’t go far enough. Greenpeace says ...
I’m starting to wonder if Anna Burns-Francis might be the best political interviewer we’ve got. That might sound unlikely to you, it came as a bit of a surprise to me.Jack Tame can be excellent, but has some pretty average days. I like Rebecca Wright on Newshub, she asks good ...
Chris Trotter writes – Willie Jackson is said to be planning a “media summit” to discuss “the state of the media and how to protect Fourth Estate Journalism”. Not only does the Editor of The Daily Blog, Martyn Bradbury, think this is a good idea, but he has also ...
Graeme Edgeler writes – This morning [April 21], the Wellington High Court is hearing a judicial review brought by Hon. Karen Chhour, the Minister for Children, against a decision of the Waitangi Tribunal. This is unusual, judicial reviews are much more likely to brought against ministers, rather than ...
Both of Parliament’s watchdogs have now ripped into the Government’s Fast-track Approvals Bill. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāMy pick of the six newsey things to know from Aotearoa’s political economy and beyond on the morning of Tuesday, April 23 are:The Lead: The Auditor General,John Ryan, has joined the ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Sarah SpengemanPeople wait to board an electric bus in Pune, India. (Image credit: courtesy of ITDP) Public transportation riders in Pune, India, love the city’s new electric buses so much they will actually skip an older diesel bus that ...
The infrastructure industry yesterday issued a “hurry up” message to the Government, telling it to get cracking on developing a pipeline of infrastructure projects.The hiatus around the change of Government has seen some major projects cancelled and others delayed, and there is uncertainty about what will happen with the new ...
Hi,Over the weekend I revisited a podcast I really adore, Dead Eyes. It’s about a guy who got fired from Band of Brothers over two decades ago because Tom Hanks said he had “dead eyes”.If you don’t recall — 2001’s Band of Brothers was part of the emerging trend of ...
Buzz from the Beehive The 180 or so recipients of letters from the Government telling them how to submit infrastructure projects for “fast track” consideration includes some whose project applications previously have been rejected by the courts. News media were quick to feature these in their reports after RMA Reform Minister Chris ...
It would not be a desirable way to start your holiday by breaking your back, your head, or your wrist, but on our first hour in Singapore I gave it a try.We were chatting, last week, before we started a meeting of Hazel’s Enviro Trust, about the things that can ...
Calling all journalists, academics, planners, lawyers, political activists, environmentalists, and other members of the public who believe that the relationships between vested interests and politicians need to be scrutinised. We need to work together to make sure that the new Fast-Track Approvals Bill – currently being pushed through by the ...
Feel worried. Shane Jones and a couple of his Cabinet colleagues are about to be granted the power to override any and all objections to projects like dams, mines, roads etc even if: said projects will harm biodiversity, increase global warming and cause other environmental harms, and even if ...
Bryce Edwards writes- The ability of the private sector to quickly establish major new projects making use of the urban and natural environment is to be supercharged by the new National-led Government. Yesterday it introduced to Parliament one of its most significant reforms, the Fast Track Approvals Bill. ...
Michael Bassett writes – If you think there is a move afoot by the radical Maori fringe of New Zealand society to create a parallel system of government to the one that we elect at our triennial elections, you aren’t wrong. Over the last few days we have ...
Without a corresponding drop in interest rates, it’s doubtful any changes to the CCCFA will unleash a massive rush of home buyers. Photo: Lynn GrievesonTL;DR: The six things that stood out to me in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, poverty and climate on Monday, April 22 included:The Government making a ...
Sunday was a lazy day. I started watching Jack Tame on Q&A, the interviews are usually good for something to write about. Saying the things that the politicians won’t, but are quite possibly thinking. Things that are true and need to be extracted from between the lines.As you might know ...
In our Weekly Roundup last week we covered news from Auckland Transport that the WX1 Western Express is going to get an upgrade next year with double decker electric buses. As part of the announcement, AT also said “Since we introduced the WX1 Western Express last November we have seen ...
TL;DR: The six key events to watch in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the week to April 29 include:PM Christopher Luxon is scheduled to hold a post-Cabinet news conference at 4 pm today. Stats NZ releases its statutory report on Census 2023 tomorrow.Finance Minister Nicola Willis delivers a pre-Budget speech at ...
A listing of 29 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, April 14, 2024 thru Sat, April 20, 2024. Story of the week Our story of the week hinges on these words from the abstract of a fresh academic ...
The ability of the private sector to quickly establish major new projects making use of the urban and natural environment is to be supercharged by the new National-led Government. Yesterday it introduced to Parliament one of its most significant reforms, the Fast Track Approvals Bill. The Government says this will ...
This is a column to say thank you. So many of have been in touch since Mum died to say so many kind and thoughtful things. You’re wonderful, all of you. You’ve asked how we’re doing, how Dad’s doing. A little more realisation each day, of the irretrievable finality of ...
Identifying the engine type in your car is crucial for various reasons, including maintenance, repairs, and performance upgrades. Knowing the specific engine model allows you to access detailed technical information, locate compatible parts, and make informed decisions about modifications. This comprehensive guide will provide you with a step-by-step approach to ...
Introduction: The allure of racing is undeniable. The thrill of speed, the roar of engines, and the exhilaration of competition all contribute to the allure of this adrenaline-driven sport. For those who yearn to experience the pinnacle of racing, becoming a race car driver is the ultimate dream. However, the ...
Introduction Automobiles have become ubiquitous in modern society, serving as a primary mode of transportation and a symbol of economic growth and personal mobility. With countless vehicles traversing roads and highways worldwide, it begs the question: how many cars are there in the world? Determining the precise number is a ...
Maintaining a safe and reliable vehicle requires regular inspections. Whether it’s a routine maintenance checkup or a safety inspection, knowing how long the process will take can help you plan your day accordingly. This article delves into the factors that influence the duration of a car inspection and provides an ...
Mazda Motor Corporation, commonly known as Mazda, is a Japanese multinational automaker headquartered in Fuchu, Aki District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. The company was founded in 1920 as the Toyo Cork Kogyo Co., Ltd., and began producing vehicles in 1931. Mazda is primarily known for its production of passenger cars, but ...
Your car battery is an essential component that provides power to start your engine, operate your electrical systems, and store energy. Over time, batteries can weaken and lose their ability to hold a charge, which can lead to starting problems, power failures, and other issues. Replacing your battery before it ...
In most states, you cannot register a car without a valid driver’s license. However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. Exceptions to the RuleIf you are under 18 years old: In some states, you can register a car in your name even if you do not ...
Mazda, a Japanese automotive manufacturer with a rich history of innovation and engineering excellence, has emerged as a formidable player in the global car market. Known for its reputation of producing high-quality, fuel-efficient, and driver-oriented vehicles, Mazda has consistently garnered praise from industry experts and consumers alike. In this article, ...
Struts are an essential part of a car’s suspension system. They are responsible for supporting the weight of the car and damping the oscillations of the springs. Struts are typically made of steel or aluminum and are filled with hydraulic fluid. How Do Struts Work? Struts work by transferring the ...
Car registration is a mandatory process that all vehicle owners must complete annually. This process involves registering your car with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and paying an associated fee. The registration process ensures that your vehicle is properly licensed and insured, and helps law enforcement and other authorities ...
Zoom is a video conferencing service that allows you to share your screen, webcam, and audio with other participants. In addition to sharing your own audio, you can also share the audio from your computer with other participants. This can be useful for playing music, sharing presentations with audio, or ...
Te Pāti Māori are demanding the New Zealand Government support an international independent investigation into mass graves that have been uncovered at two hospitals on the Gaza strip, following weeks of assault by Israeli troops. Among the 392 bodies that have been recovered, are children and elderly civilians. Many of ...
Our two-tiered system for veterans’ support is out of step with our closest partners, and all parties in Parliament should work together to fix it, Labour veterans’ affairs spokesperson Greg O’Connor said. ...
Stripping two Ministers of their portfolios just six months into the job shows Christopher Luxon’s management style is lacking, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said. ...
Tonight’s court decision to overturn the summons of the Children’s Minister has enabled the Crown to continue making decisions about Māori without evidence, says Te Pāti Māori spokesperson for Children, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. “The judicial system has this evening told the nation that this government can do whatever they want when ...
It appears Nicola Willis is about to pull the rug out from under the feet of local communities still dealing with the aftermath of last year’s severe weather, and local councils relying on funding to build back from these disasters. ...
The Government is making short-sighted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that will take away environmental protection in favour of short-term profits, Labour’s environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said today. ...
Labour welcomes the release of the report into the North Island weather events and looks forward to working with the Government to ensure that New Zealand is as prepared as it can be for the next natural disaster. ...
The Labour Party has called for the New Zealand Government to recognise Palestine, as a material step towards progressing the two-State solution needed to achieve a lasting peace in the region. ...
Some of our country’s most important work, stopping the sexual exploitation of children and violent extremism could go along with staff on the frontline at ports and airports. ...
The Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill will give projects such as new coal mines a ‘get out of jail free’ card to wreak havoc on the environment, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said today. ...
The government's decision to reintroduce Three Strikes is a destructive and ineffective piece of law-making that will only exacerbate an inherently biased and racist criminal justice system, said Te Pāti Māori Justice Spokesperson, Tākuta Ferris, today. During the time Three Strikes was in place in Aotearoa, Māori and Pasifika received ...
Cuts to frontline hospital staff are not only a broken election promise, it shows the reckless tax cuts have well and truly hit the frontline of the health system, says Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. ...
The Green Party has joined the call for public submissions on the fast-track legislation to be extended after the Ombudsman forced the Government to release the list of organisations invited to apply just hours before submissions close. ...
New Zealand’s good work at reducing climate emissions for three years in a row will be undone by the National government’s lack of ambition and scrapping programmes that were making a difference, Labour Party climate spokesperson Megan Woods said today. ...
More essential jobs could be on the chopping block, this time Ministry of Education staff on the school lunches team are set to find out whether they're in line to lose their jobs. ...
Te Pāti Māori is disgusted at the confirmation that hundreds are set to lose their jobs at Oranga Tamariki, and the disestablishment of the Treaty Response Unit. “This act of absolute carelessness and out of touch decision making is committing tamariki to state abuse.” Said Te Pāti Māori Oranga Tamariki ...
The Government is trying to bring in a law that will allow Ministers to cut corners and kill off native species, Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said. ...
Cancelling urgently needed new Cook Strait ferries and hiking the cost of public transport for many Kiwis so that National can announce the prospect of another tunnel for Wellington is not making good choices, Labour Transport Spokesperson Tangi Utikere said. ...
A laundry list of additional costs for Tāmaki Makarau Auckland shows the Minister for the city is not delivering for the people who live there, says Labour Auckland Issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert. ...
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi, and Mema Paremata mō Tāmaki-Makaurau, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, will travel to the Gold Coast to strengthen ties with Māori in Australia next week (15-21 April). The visit, in the lead-up to the 9th Australian National Kapa haka Festival, will be an opportunity for both ...
The Green Party has today launched a step-by-step guide to help New Zealanders make their voice heard on the Government’s democracy dodging and anti-environment fast track legislation. ...
The National Government’s proposed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act will mean tenants can be turfed from their homes by landlords with little notice, Labour housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty said. ...
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson is calling on all parties to support a common-sense change that’s great for the planet and great for consumers after her member’s bill was drawn from the ballot today. ...
A significant milestone has been reached in the fight to strike an anti-Pasifika and unfair law from the country’s books after Teanau Tuiono’s members’ bill passed its first reading. ...
New Zealand has today missed the opportunity to uphold the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, says James Shaw after his member’s bill was voted down in its first reading. ...
Today’s advice from the Climate Change Commission paints a sobering reality of the challenge we face in combating climate change, especially in light of recent Government policy announcements. ...
Minister for Disability Issues Penny Simmonds appears to have delayed a report back to Cabinet on the progress New Zealand is making against international obligations for disabled New Zealanders. ...
Hundreds of New Zealand families affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) will benefit from a new Government focus on prevention and treatment, says Health Minister Dr Shane Reti. “We know FASD is a leading cause of preventable intellectual and neurodevelopmental disability in New Zealand,” Dr Reti says. “Every day, ...
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones today attended the official opening of Kaikohe’s new $14.7 million sports complex. “The completion of the Kaikohe Multi Sports Complex is a fantastic achievement for the Far North,” Mr Jones says. “This facility not only fulfils a long-held dream for local athletes, but also creates ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ engagements in Türkiye this week underlined the importance of diplomacy to meet growing global challenges. “Returning to the Gallipoli Peninsula to represent New Zealand at Anzac commemorations was a sombre reminder of the critical importance of diplomacy for de-escalating conflicts and easing tensions,” Mr Peters ...
Ambassador Millar, Burgemeester, Vandepitte, Excellencies, military representatives, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen – good morning and welcome to this sacred Anzac Day dawn service. It is an honour to be here on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand at Buttes New British Cemetery, Polygon Wood – a deeply ...
Distinguished guests - It is an honour to return once again to this site which, as the resting place for so many of our war-dead, has become a sacred place for generations of New Zealanders. Our presence here and at the other special spaces of Gallipoli is made ...
Mai ia tawhiti pamamao, te moana nui a Kiwa, kua tae whakaiti mai matou, ki to koutou papa whenua. No koutou te tapuwae, no matou te tapuwae, kua honoa pumautia. Ko nga toa kua hinga nei, o te Waipounamu, o te Ika a Maui, he okioki tahi me o ...
Paul Goldsmith will take on responsibility for the Media and Communications portfolio, while Louise Upston will pick up the Disability Issues portfolio, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today. “Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealand back on track. As issues change in prominence, I plan to adjust Ministerial ...
Recreational catch limits will be reduced in areas of Fiordland and the Chatham Islands to help keep those fisheries healthy and sustainable, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The lower recreational daily catch limits for a range of finfish and shellfish species caught in the Fiordland Marine Area and ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone in New Zealand’s hydrogen future, with the opening of the country’s first network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Wiri. “I want to congratulate the team at Hiringa Energy and its partners K one W one (K1W1), Mitsui & Co New Zealand ...
The coalition Government is delivering on its commitment to improve resource management laws and give greater certainty to consent applicants, with a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) expected to be introduced to Parliament next month. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has today outlined the first RMA Amendment ...
Overseas models for regulating the oil and gas sector, including their decommissioning regimes, are being carefully scrutinised as a potential template for New Zealand’s own sector, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Coalition Government is focused on rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s energy sector as it looks to strengthen ...
Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell has today released the Report of the Government Inquiry into the response to the North Island Severe Weather Events. “The report shows that New Zealand’s emergency management system is not fit-for-purpose and there are some significant gaps we need to address,” Mr Mitchell ...
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is today travelling to Europe where he’ll update the United Nations Human Rights Council on the Government’s work to restore law and order. “Attending the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva provides us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while ...
Associate Agriculture Minister, Mark Patterson, formally reopened the world’s largest wool processing facility today in Awatoto, Napier, following a $50 million rebuild and refurbishment project. “The reopening of this facility will significantly lift the economic opportunities available to New Zealand’s wool sector, which already accounts for 20 per cent of ...
Hon Andrew Bayly, Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing At the Southland Otago Regional Engineering Collective (SOREC) Summit, 18 April, Dunedin Ngā mihi nui, Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Ko Whanganui aho Good Afternoon and thank you for inviting me to open your summit today. I am delighted ...
The Government is delivering on its commitment to bring back the Three Strikes legislation, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced today. “Our Government is committed to restoring law and order and enforcing appropriate consequences on criminals. We are making it clear that repeat serious violent or sexual offending is not ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has today announced four new diplomatic appointments for New Zealand’s overseas missions. “Our diplomats have a vital role in maintaining and protecting New Zealand’s interests around the world,” Mr Peters says. “I am pleased to announce the appointment of these senior diplomats from the ...
New Zealand is contributing NZ$7 million to support communities affected by severe food insecurity and other urgent humanitarian needs in Ethiopia and Somalia, Foreign Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters announced today. “Over 21 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance across Ethiopia, with a further 6.9 million people ...
Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith is congratulating Mataaho Collective for winning the Golden Lion for best participant in the main exhibition at the Venice Biennale. "Congratulations to the Mataaho Collective for winning one of the world's most prestigious art prizes at the Venice Biennale. “It is good ...
The Government is reforming financial services to improve access to home loans and other lending, and strengthen customer protections, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly and Housing Minister Chris Bishop announced today. “Our coalition Government is committed to rebuilding the economy and making life simpler by cutting red tape. We are ...
“China remains a strong commercial opportunity for Kiwi exporters as Chinese businesses and consumers continue to value our high-quality safe produce,” Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says. Mr McClay has returned to New Zealand following visits to Beijing, Harbin and Shanghai where he met ministers, governors and mayors and engaged in trade and agricultural events with the New ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has completed a successful trip to Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, deepening relationships and capitalising on opportunities. Mr Luxon was accompanied by a business delegation and says the choice of countries represents the priority the New Zealand Government places on South East Asia, and our relationships in ...
New Zealand is demonstrating its commitment to reducing global greenhouse emissions, and supporting clean energy transition in South East Asia, through a contribution of NZ$41 million (US$25 million) in climate finance to the Asian Development Bank (ADB)-led Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM). Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced ...
The Government is today releasing a list of organisations who received letters about the Fast-track applications process, says RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop. “Recently Ministers and agencies have received a series of OIA requests for a list of organisations to whom I wrote with information on applying to have a ...
Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Wellington Barrister David Jonathan Boldt as a Judge of the High Court, and the Honourable Justice Matthew Palmer as a Judge of the Court of Appeal. Justice Boldt graduated with an LLB from Victoria University of Wellington in 1990, and also holds ...
Education Minister Erica Stanford will lead the New Zealand delegation at the 2024 International Summit on the Teaching Profession (ISTP) held in Singapore. The delegation includes representatives from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) Te Wehengarua and the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) Te Riu Roa. The summit is co-hosted ...
A stopbank upgrade project in Tairawhiti partly funded by the Government has increased flood resilience for around 7000ha of residential and horticultural land so far, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones today attended a dawn service in Gisborne to mark the end of the first stage of the ...
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters will represent the Government at Anzac Day commemorations on the Gallipoli Peninsula next week and engage with senior representatives of the Turkish government in Istanbul. “The Gallipoli campaign is a defining event in our history. It will be a privilege to share the occasion ...
Science, Innovation and Technology and Defence Minister Judith Collins will next week attend the OECD Science and Technology Ministerial conference in Paris and Anzac Day commemorations in Belgium. “Science, innovation and technology have a major role to play in rebuilding our economy and achieving better health, environmental and social outcomes ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon held a bilateral meeting today with the President of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The Prime Minister was accompanied by MP Paulo Garcia, the first Filipino to be elected to a legislature outside the Philippines. During today’s meeting, Prime Minister Luxon and President Marcos Jr discussed opportunities to ...
The Government has announced that $20 million in funding will be made available to Westport to fund much needed flood protection around the town. This measure will significantly improve the resilience of the community, says Local Government Minister Simeon Brown. “The Westport community has already been allocated almost $3 million ...
The Government is proud to support the first ever Repco Supercars Championship event in Taupō as up to 70,000 motorsport fans attend the Taupō International Motorsport Park this weekend, says Economic Development Minister Melissa Lee. “Anticipation for the ITM Taupō Super400 is huge, with tickets and accommodation selling out weeks ...
Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has announced an increase to the Rates Rebate Scheme, putting money back into the pockets of low-income homeowners. “The coalition Government is committed to bringing down the cost of living for New Zealanders. That includes targeted support for those Kiwis who are doing things tough, such ...
The Coalition Government is investing in a project to boost survival rates of New Zealand mussels and grow the industry, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has announced. “This project seeks to increase the resilience of our mussels and significantly boost the sector’s productivity,” Mr Jones says. “The project - ...
Benefit figures released today underscore the importance of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and have 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “Benefit numbers are still significantly higher than when National was last in government, when there was about 70,000 fewer ...
The Government’s commitment to doubling New Zealand’s renewable energy capacity is backed by new data showing that clean energy has helped the country reach its lowest annual gross emissions since 1999, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. New Zealand’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990-2022) published today, shows gross emissions fell ...
The Government is bringing the earthquake-prone building review forward, with work to start immediately, and extending the deadline for remediations by four years, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy. A key part of our plan is to cut red tape that ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his Thai counterpart, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, have today agreed that New Zealand and the Kingdom of Thailand will upgrade the bilateral relationship to a Strategic Partnership by 2026. “New Zealand and Thailand have a lot to offer each other. We have a strong mutual desire to build ...
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Transport Minister Simeon Brown have today announced the Coalition Government’s intention to extend port coastal permits for a further 20 years, providing port operators with certainty to continue their operations. “The introduction of the Resource Management Act in 1991 required ports to obtain coastal ...
Today’s announcement that inflation is down to 4 per cent is encouraging news for Kiwis, but there is more work to be done - underlining the importance of the Government’s plan to get the economy back on track, acting Finance Minister Chris Bishop says. “Inflation is now at 4 per ...
The pair opened their first fully collaborative exhibition, Nina for Flowers, last Saturday. Gabi Lardies visited their studio to find out who Nina is and what working together was like.‘It didn’t start out like, ‘This is a show about Nina,’” says Josephine Jelicich, gripping a thermos of peppermint tea. ...
Thank you, Dr Maximilian Oskar Bircher-Benner, for your brilliant invention. I’m another mid-20s Kiwi who had an OE last year. I hopped on my bicycle where France meets the Atlantic and cycled east. I pedalled through the Loire Valley, down rivers lined with willows and ancient wisteria-draped chateaus. I relished ...
Asia Pacific Report From France to Australia, university pro-Palestine protests in the United States have now spread to several countries with students pitching on-campus camps. And students at Columbia and other US universities remain defiant as campuses have witnessed the biggest protests since the anti-Vietnam war and anti-apartheid eras in ...
Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards, Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)New Zealand Government’s Fast Track legislation. Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government ...
Tara Ward talks to presenter Naomi Toilalo about the new TV show that turns food waste into a three course feast. Naomi Toilalo is standing in the warehouse at Good Neighbour Tauranga, helping unpack the two-and-a-half tonnes of rejected food that will arrive at the community support hub that day. ...
Scout is our latest Dog of the Month. This feature was offered as a reward during our What’s Eating Aotearoa PledgeMe campaign. Thank you to Scout’s human, Avril, for her support. Dog name: Scout (named after the little girl in To Kill a Mockingbird – she inherited the independent spirit ...
Megan Alatini takes us through her life in TV, including ‘terrible’ daytime TV, the class of Carol Hirschfeld and her most embarrassing TrueBliss moment. When she responded to a vague newspaper ad asking “do you have what it takes to be a popstar?” 25 years ago, Megan Alatini never guessed ...
A new exhibition in Wellington showcases the faces behind your local goods and services. Back in 1977, when I was a fine arts student at the University of Canterbury, I took a series of photographs of Christchurch shopkeepers. The photos were for a calendar – a project for my end ...
Toomaj and his resistance to tyranny through his songs have become an icon for the youth of Iran, so his sentence has hit the nation hard. Toomaj Salehi is not the first artist to pay the price for standing with the people. ...
My cousin Dylan and I spotted these big eels under the bridge that summer. We watched them lounging under the dark weed, facing into the flow of water, their mouths frozen open. Dylan and I couldn’t stop thinking about those eels. The night we went down to the creek, we ...
Newsroom, home of satire. My long-running weekly satirical series The Secret Diary has moved to Newsroom and will appear every Saturday, with Victor Billot’s wildly popular satirical Odes continuing to appear every Sunday. Diaries, Odes – while serious political columnists toil at meaningful opinions and stroke their chins to an ...
Tara Ward unravels the many nuanced layers of a cartoon about talking dogs.This is an excerpt from our weekly pop culture newsletter Rec Room. Sign up here. It’s not often an episode of a children’s cartoon has adults sobbing into their sleeves, but that’s exactly what happened this week when ...
Working as a doctor in developing countries to help communities achieve better health outcomes is nothing short of a life goal for Jessica Tater. The University of Otago medical student has her sights firmly set on joining the international humanitarian organisation Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) when she qualifies ...
There’s an island in the far reaches of Auckland’s territory, sitting off the tip of the Coromandel Peninsula, 30 minutes by air from the city or four hours on the slow boat. Aotea Great Barrier is off-grid, it has a population of fewer than a thousand people … and most ...
Asia Pacific Report An Australian author and advocate, Jim Aubrey, today led a national symbolic one minute’s silence to mark the “blood debt” owed to Papuan allies during the Second World War indigenous resistance against the invading Japanese forces. “A promise to most people is a promise,” Aubrey said in ...
Asia Pacific Report The Freedom Flotilla is ready to sail to Gaza, reports Kia Ora Gaza. All the required paperwork has been submitted to the port authority, and the cargo has been loaded and prepared for the humanitarian trip to the besieged enclave. However, organisers received word of an “administrative ...
Pacific Media Watch Palestine solidarity protesters today demonstrated at the Auckland headquarters of Television New Zealand, accusing the country’s major TV network of broadcasting “propaganda” backing Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. About 50 protesters targeted the main entrance to the TVNZ building near Sky Tower and also picketed a side ...
Opinion by Lynley Hood. Forty years on from my 1985 Fulbright Grant, my disquiet over the war in Gaza evoked some troubling questions. The answer to my first question – What is the primary purpose of the Fulbright Programme? – was on the Fulbright NZ website. It says: US Senator, ...
The ministers responsible for green-lighting major projects need to be open about potential conflicts of interest, says Transparency International. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anastasia Powell, Professor, Family and Sexual Violence, RMIT University It has been a particularly distressing start to the year. There is little that can ease the current grief of individuals, families and communities who have needlessly lost a loved one to men’s ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Senior Research Associate, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne Lichen, the first described example of symbiosis.AdeJ Artventure/Shutterstock Once known only to those studying biology, the word symbiosis is now widely used. Symbiosis is the intimate ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Hemsley, Head, Childhood Dementia Research Group, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University Olena Ivanova/Shutterstock “Childhood” and “dementia” are two words we wish we didn’t have to use together. But sadly, around 1,400 ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University The government’s Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has just published its second report. It was set up by Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Minister for Social Services Amanda Rishworth in 2022 to provide: ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne The Queensland state election will be held in October. A YouGov poll for The Courier Mail, conducted April 9–17 from a sample ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Naeni, PhD candidate at Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University There’s been much talk in recent months about what a possible second Donald Trump presidency in the United States could mean for Europe, Russia’s war in Ukraine, the ...
A brief round-up of submissions on the controversial proposed law. This is an excerpt from our weekly environmental newsletter Future Proof. Sign up here. Last week, submissions on the controversial Fast-track Approvals Bill closed just hours after the government released a list of stakeholder organisations who were sent letters advising how they could ...
A poem from Robin Peace’s new collection Detritus of Empire: feather / grass / rock. Cereal giving I see a woman’s hands, see her curious hands break a stalk as she walks through the tall prairie, the savannah, the steppe, wherever it was. See her idly bite the grass that ...
The only published and available best-selling indie book chart in New Zealand is the top 10 sales list recorded every week at Unity Books’ stores in High St, Auckland, and Willis St, Wellington.AUCKLAND1 Hemingway’s Goblet by Dermot Ross (Mary Egan Publishing, $38)A handsomely produced (debossed cover, lovely ...
The Commissioner's decision validates the longstanding efforts of the local community and ensures that Awataha Marae will be managed to serve the needs of the local community, particularly for hosting tangihanga. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristan Salles, Associate professor, University of Sydney Examples of Australian landscapes.Unsplash Seventy thousand years ago, the sea level was much lower than today. Australia, along with New Guinea and Tasmania, formed a connected landmass known as Sahul. Around this time – ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Castagna, Lecturer, Creative Writing, Western Sydney University Day Day Market, ParramattaPhoto: Garry Trinh I live on the edge of Parramatta, Australia’s fastest-growing city, on the kind of old-fashioned suburban street that has 1950s fibros constructed in the post-war housing boom, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Ryan, Teaching Fellow in Economics, University of Waikato GettyImagesfatido/Getty Images There is an ongoing global debate over whether the high inflation seen in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic can be lowered without a recession. New Zealand is not ...
The ‘Wicked Game’ heartthrob is in his late 60s now. That didn’t stop him putting on a lively, goofy and very sparkly show. Apart from ‘Wicked Game’, which graces a sultry playlist of mine simply called 💋, my last sustained Chris Isaak listening session took place when I was about ...
Analysis - Two ministers were stripped of portfolios in a warning to Cabinet, drama broke out at the Waitangi Tribunal, and the gang patch ban bill ran into opposition. ...
Tara Ward makes an impassioned plea for some vital pop culture merch. In April 1999, I became obsessed with a new reality television show called Popstars. Every Tuesday night, five strangers transformed into music royalty before my very eyes as Joe, Keri, Carly, Erika and Megan were chosen to form ...
PNG Post-Courier In the early hours of ANZAC Day, aerial photographs captured an impressive gathering of Australians and Papua New Guineans at Isurava in the Northern (Oro) Province. The solemn dawn service yesterday was held at a site steeped in history, where some of the fiercest battles of World War ...
The PSA is shocked that Oranga Tamariki has used the cost cutting drive to downgrade its commitment to Te Ao Māori and remove many specialist Māori roles. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Kemish, Adjunct Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of Queensland There can be no more powerful symbol of the relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea than the prime ministers of these neighbouring countries walking together on the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharon Robinson, Distinguished Professor and Deputy Director of ARC Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future (SAEF), University of Wollongong, University of Wollongong Andrew Netherwood Over the last 25 years, the ozone hole which forming over Antarctica each spring has started to shrink. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Viktoria Kahui, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Economics, University of Otago Getty Images/Amy Toensing Biodiversity is declining at rates unprecedented in human history. This suggests the ways we currently use to manage our natural environment are failing. One emerging concept focuses on ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Colin Bednall, Associate Professor in Management, Swinburne University of Technology marvent/Shutterstock Finding the best person to fill a position can be tough, from drafting a job ad to producing a shortlist of top interview candidates. Employers typically consider information from ...
Wondering where to host your next BYO? Whether its a small gathering or a massive party, we’ve got some recommendations. I was first introduced to the concept of BYOs at Dunedin’s India Gardens, a legendary but sadly defunct establishment, which purveyed enormous quantities of mango chicken to Aotearoa’s drunkest future ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julien Cooper, Honorary Lecturer, Department of History and Archaeology, Macquarie University Julien Cooper The hyper-arid desert of Eastern Sudan, the Atbai Desert, seems like an unlikely place to find evidence of ancient cattle herders. But in this dry environment, my new ...
The sector says it’s hopeful her replacement Paul Goldsmith will be able to throw it a lifeline, after six months with a minister deemed missing in action, writes Catherine McGregor in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign ...
The government can't just rely on axing public sector jobs and has to do more to cut spending, says the chief economist at a free market think tank. ...
Rock The Vote NZ, known for its advocacy for minor party unity and its role within the Freedoms NZ Coalition during the 2023 General Election, celebrates this merger as a strategic enhancement of its operational strength and outreach. ...
Nearly everyone has experienced the frustration of something you use breaking and being difficult or expensive to fix. Proposed legislation could change that. It’s been raining on and off all Sunday afternoon but people are lining up outside a building in a corner of Gribblehirst Park in Sandringham, Auckland. In ...
What does a forever relationship look like when you don’t believe in marriage? And how do you celebrate it? This essay is part of our Sunday Essay series, made possible thanks to the support of Creative New Zealand.I’m going to do it, right now. I’m going to say ...
The Prime Minister has committed to resuming direct flights to Thailand. But it’s not a promise he will be able to deliver on anytime soon. The post Prime Minister jumps the gun in Thailand appeared first on Newsroom. ...
It’s not that long ago Eliza McCartney was seriously wondering if the Paris Olympics would be her pole vaulting swansong. After years of being hounded by injury after injury, the Rio Olympics bronze medallist was still confident she would compete at her second Olympics in Paris in July, unless something ...
FICTION 1 Take Two by Danielle Hawkins (Allen & Unwin, $36.99) There’s commercial fiction, like this book, and then there’s quality fiction, quality writers, quality literature; the forthcoming Auckland Writers Festival is full of quality, and ReadingRoom has two tickets to give away to the following events: Paul Lynch (Dublin ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A[quiz],DIV[quiz],A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp'); Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions. The post Newsroom daily quiz, Friday 26 April appeared first on Newsroom. ...
You can’t have missed the Gallipoli story as the movies, documentaries, essays and books capture what it was like for New Zealand troops in their eight-month campaign on the Peninsula. But this Anzac Day the Auckland War Memorial Museum has published a book that sheds light on a little-known aspect of the ...
Venezuelan socialists opposed to both US and Russian imperialism protest outside Russian embassy in Caracas against the war in Ukraine.
Imperialism the last great pandemic
Good to see people opposing imperialism generally. I get sick of "Western imperialism OK because of Russian imperialism" or "Russian imperialism OK because of Western imperialism" etc
"….I get sick of "Western imperialism OK because of Russian imperialism" or "Russian imperialism OK because of Western imperialism" etc"
Well put. Me too.
In the debate over the invasion of Ukraine, partisan opponents of US imperialism, accuse those of us against this aggression of ignoring the terrible crimes of US imperialism. While they ignore the terrible crimes committed by Russian imperialism.
P.S. I disagree with the headline, which personalises Russian imperialism to the character of Vladimir Putin. This personalisation ignores the fact that every country with a growth economy needs to expand.
To gain control of markets, to gain control of the sources of raw materials, to deny their competitors control of these same markets and resources, to expand into every nook and cranny of the globe (and the environment). But infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible, sooner or later you wind up against natural or man made borders that put a limit on that growth. Humanity can obey these limits or try and force through them. Imposing war on the human world and biosphere collapse on the natural world as the result.
P.S. P.S. It is true that there are partisan supporters of US imperialism on our side who ignore the crimes of US imperialism.
Like their opposites on the other side, they ignore the root cause of imperialism because they gain from it. They know that New Zealand gains from being a junior partner of US imperialism and Western domination of the global markets and resources.
Labour and Greens pass – under urgency meaning no public debate – a special SOP clause entrenching public ownership of NZ water assets unless a government can muster 60% of Parliament.
Great result but hate to see that kind of Parliamentary move practised by National against us. Helluva Parliamentary weapon.
Sage, Eugenie – New Zealand Parliament (www.parliament.nz)
Let's hope they repeatedly stress this when the right bang on about labour stealing 'our' (farmers') water.
Wonderful.
Now if the government use the same boldness to address the cost of living crisis with a GST tax cut – the crisis in our health system with a windfall tax on superprofits – the housing crisis with an empty homes tax. And other bold progressive measures to address inequality, Labour's victory in the election will be assured
In for a penny in for a pound.
In for a penny in for a pound.
My concern here, is that because the Nacts have 'politicised' protecting our waterways; If this sort of bold legislating stops here, the elections will be fought over this sole issue. Conspiracy theories peppered with wild far right accusations against the government of being 'undemocratic'.
We need to take a leaf out of the Right's playbook.
Roger Douglas said I will give my opponents a moving target. And he did with a whirlwind of right wing enactments one after another.
We need to do the same but with progressive left policies.
Don't leave the Nacts with one target.
We will need much more of this sort of bold legislative activism to address the multiple crise assailing this country and government.
In for a penny in for pound.
The two things are completely separate.
The public perception is that the government is 'stealing our water' by removing it from local government ownership to some form of super-regional grouping – with multiple layers of bureaucracy, complete with the (highly controversial) co-governance provisions. [You can argue that this is not the reality, or that people's perception is wrong – but that's the way a large tranche of NZ perceives the issue]
The fact that the government is now saying – oh, we won't let these new entities sell off the water to anyone else, is a completely separate issue.
And this protection is really only required because of the consolidation of the water infrastructure into the super-regional groupings. One really can't imagine the local water infrastructure being sold off, if it remained in local Council ownership – it would be political suicide for the individual councillors.
A council could say it would sell 50% ownership of water because it could not borrow the money required (debt cap) to invest to maintain quality of services – and it and the private equity partner would receive 50% of the water charge revenue (as the government does with power companies – with half ownership on the share market).
What the government has done is guaranteed funding for water services without sale of assets.
My guess is that Labour and Greens will cite the sale of half share of the power companies as why they did this. It is a challenge to National to engage on the issue because of the lack of local council capacity to raise finance to maintain water quality.
Councils at this point have created water organisations without any idea of how to manage future funding cost.
I doubt that New Zealanders would like a repeat rort. However, people seem to have very short and selective memories.
https://thestandard.org.nz/the-power-companies-are-rorting-us/
What rort,consumer are paying around the same as 2012,demand is little changed over the last decade,the only problem is they have not been repaying debt to sustain the tax offset in the dividend.
The rort as described in the linked Post.
The readers of this site deserve an (better) explanation as to why you think that they pay the roughly same for power as 10 years ago. My power bill and unit price (kWh) certainly have gone up heaps over a decade.
The linked post said nothing about the pricing charged to consumers,that is an assumption that is not even wrong and repeated by yourself.
Your unit cost also includes the lines component (not the fixed charge) from Vector and transpower of around 11c a unit,and the generators have mostly absorbed the 1 billion plus in carbon taxes.demand has not effectively changed since 2012 in demand or generating capacity.
It is at odds with all the pricing data,from the regulators and monitoring such the EA,Mbie,and Transpower,three different regulators all coming to the same conclusion.
https://tpow-corp-production.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/public/2022-11/WiTMH%20Monitoring%20Report%20-%20Sept%2022.pdf?VersionId=KsZ9cm5WRYZMjtGY9DsBIe6JVmYL781J
That’s a very helpful comment, thank you, although I found it hard to find the relevant part in your link. This is an easier example (and just a simple graph) that confirms your feedback: https://figure.nz/chart/X1TWmnHKBmTvUHZ4-UdJSof4Nstr0cnMI
page 16 bottom left.
Yes, thank you, I did find it, after some scrolling and speed-reading. I like my exemplar better 😉
Yeah and it goes to show how susceptible people are to trojan numbers (showing something completely different from numerical reality) by the emphasis on the big number.
I believed, actually I was quite convinced, that the unit price of generated electricity had gone up in addition to other (fixed) charges and it turns out I was wrong, which is good to know.
The other good thing to know is demand (consumption) of electricity in NZ this year will be down around 1500 gwh,taking us back to consumption levels in 2005.
Increases going forward will be policy driven.
Have local government ever sold off water infrastructure? Have they ever even proposed doing so?
It seems to me, that the answer is firmly in the 'no' basket.
The test case for this is Auckland – which is effectively already a super-regional body, after the super city amalgamation. Sale of water infrastructure has never even been on the horizon.
For precisely the reasons I specified – that it would be political suicide for the councillors involved.
Not to mention the fact that, for most councils, the water assets would have little value to a third party. It's only when amalgamated into these super-regional organizations, that they become attractive assets. Hence the perceived need for the government to enact this protective legislation.
There are alternatives to completely financing water infrastructure through rates – apart from seizing the infrastructure and implementing a new bureaucracy. They don't, however, promote co-governance – so the Government is profoundly uninterested in them.
As far as I can see, Watercare in Auckland, appear to have a fair grasp on managing future funding cost, as do Kapiti, and I'm quite sure others as well.
Failure from one council (thinking of Wellington, here, who have zero excuse – as they're not a small rural council struggling with funding, but rather have one of the wealthiest rating bases in the country), is just that: failure from that council – which should be firmly punished at the ballot box. [As a side note, I'm going to be interested to see how Tory Whanau is going to tackle this issue]. It's not failure of the 'local control of water assets' model.
As a principle, I'm in favour of local control of locally funded assets. I'm also in favour of cross-border collaboration, and of government support if/when needed (the NZTA model). All of those can happen without the 3 waters empire.
What makes you think Kapiti has anything to offer?
I have property there. Many ratepayers funded, by separate targetted rates, an extension to the water supply and now pay for this again in our current rates. (My contribution was around $1500 in the 1990s.) The rates are very high, our water is metered and highly charged for with no free or uncharged for amount that would help larger families or people who have a disability or medical condition that requires that they use lots of water.
Metered water is all very well but it does disadvantage those on low incomes, and those with health or disability conditions.
And also I think I have it right that the KCDC had an idea, a few decades ago, to mix water from two rivers that was defeated on cultural grounds and we find later would not have worked anyway, $$$$ would have been wasted.
I'd be happy to see your source for the glowing report about Kapiti.
Legislating with Churchillian boldness to protect our waterways.
Let National challenge it if they dare.
The government are using their historic MMP super majority mandate to govern.
To protect our waterways shoot from hip take no prisoners leadership is necessary.
Technically it just ads an extra step in that they would have to remove the requirement to have the 60% vote which just needs a simple majority.
Big problem is if it becomes the norm it ties parliament in knots undoing say 3 strikes… that and it messes with convention given super majorities are only used for electoral arrangements.
Pandoras box springs to mind.
Pandora's box indeed.
Like the nuclear free legislation, though National would dearly love to repeal it and on several occasions have even said they would, they have never dared.
If these progressive policies prove to be popular with the public, even over the Nacts objections it will prove very difficult and unpopular for them to repeal them.
It's not so much about repealing it as a right govt using it widely and under urgency to entrench all sorts of legislation. The door is now open for that to happen.
A good example of why legislation that gets 'locked in' cab be a bad idea. It isn't 1984 anymore and the ground has shifted. Nuclear power engineering continues to evolve and offers the safest, most reliable path toward de-carbonising our energy systems. A goal the Greens ostensibly support.
Yet a piece of legislation from almost half a century ago stands in the way because they are so emotionally wedded to it.
Assuming storage technology continues to develop rapidly, solar offers the safest and cheapest future non-carbon power source.
Nuclear, when the true costs of building nuclear plants (not the bollocks they quote to get the job) and the true costs of commissioning are built in, remains expensive and potentially dangerous…witness the war in Ukraine
Add the even higher costs of decommisioning and waste…
Specifically what type of reactor and what regulatory regime are you talking about?
There's a big 'if' there – so far the progressive policies have not been popular with the public.
To be fair, the public hardly know WTF they're looking at after media have turned it into their typical dogs breakfast. Kneejerk Pavlovian press politics.
You might also look at the p**-poor job that the Government have done over communication: 3 waters is just one example, there is a rolling-maul of government policies which have been poorly communicated.
Ardern is excellent at the big picture stuff (a little too inclined to lecture, and stray off the topic, when it's a question she doesn't want to answer) – but her Comms degree stands her in good stead. She has a gift for arrowing in on a point which makes a difference to ordinary Kiwis.
Mahuta is a disaster at communication (well, she may be good on the marae – but she's about 2/10 for Pakeha media). Faafoi was literally appalling (I can't believe he was a journalist, he was so bad). And Little appears to just get angry and dogmatic (for heaven’s sake, just admit there is a hospital staffing crisis, and be done with it)
Kiri Allen is good, as are both Woods and Wood (though the policy u-turns that Wood has to front, don't help). Hipkins is reasonable, though rather too wedded to 'policy speak' instead of translating into soundbites. But there are a solid tranche of senior ministers, who are just really, really, bad at communicating government policy.
Window dressing distraction from the reality that 3W gives effective control to an ethnic elite – a privatisation in all but name.
I am now left to wonder if this new legislation -passed under urgency with no debate and implementing an extraordinary super-majority – will also have the probable effect of politically locking 3W into place.
Given that supermajorities are only things we have put in place for stuff like
must hold an election,
must uphold electoral boundary changes, and the like,
this kind of clause should best be debated in public whether it's good for the left or not.
I certainly agree with that. Otherwise it makes a nonsense of entrenchment – and paves the way for 'entrenched' provisions to be repealed for political reasons.
Which I think is a bad thing.
I'm also not in favour of governments putting through controversial legislation under urgency. I know that both left and right have done so – and I disapprove of both.
Proper debate on legislation – including committees and submissions – is a safeguard against bad law. By which I mean, not ethically bad, but poorly or ambiguously drafted, resulting in unintended consequences; very frequently wording is substantively tightened up in committee stage as the result of public submissions; and proper debate allows the pros and cons to be set out for the rest of NZ (the actual job of the MPs in the House)
There is plenty of routine or widely supported legislation which could go through under urgency – but anything controversial, should not.
It's 5Waters and it's gonna be a clusterfuck. Ngati Porou (NZ's 2nd biggest iwi?) submitted AGAINST as one of the 88,000 (mainly objection). Their rejection= there is no such thing as Te Ao Maori & Matauranga Maori. And trying to get consensus of even 5 iwi reps on boards from about 30 iwi in Entity C covering East Cape to Nelson (!?!) to the Chathams.
Can you provide a link to the Ngati Porou submission please.
You could have looked it up yourself, as it only takes less than 30 seconds: https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/53SCFE_EVI_124081_FE9497/9688a8c96a04bd6cd3839111f280b9e691cafb6c
The submission from Ngati Porou concludes:
Reading through the submission I am finding it difficult to be as definite as you about the content of the submission. The submission carefully sets out the background for the wish of Ngati Porou to continue to exercise Ngati Poroutanga over water/s in their rohe. It makes the point that they do not agree with generalised "Maori' concepts. They do support the need for change.
I agree. But isn’t that a real problem with 3Waters? Ngati Porou have their own tikanga, their own principles. They have brought that to the management of natural resources like the Waiapu river, but as BFOW says, in their 3 Waters entity, won’t their voice in regards to those very same resources, be diluted?
Why do you believe this is a problem? And why do we believe there is a problem and that we can have a 'solution' if one is needed. I am confident that in suggesting the boundaries of the entities way, way back this would have been raised then.
Are you 'clutching at straws' and 'putting up straw man arguments' for some reason?
I am confident that these issues if they come to anything will be dealt with in positive ways by grown up people. Ngati Porou have indicated as much in the concluding para quoted above.
ie
status quo is unacceptable
support the need for transformation
support the need for the Bill to be strengthened
I find your comment slightly paternalistic. Do you have the same concerns when new entities are set up in the Pakeha world? Don't we just accept that problems will be met when they arise, public bodies meetings act procedures and conflicts of interest registers will provide guidance if necessary etc.
"Why do you believe this is a problem? "
Because this is precisely how powerful tribal interests overpower weaker ones. It's happening across Tāmaki Makaurau right now, and it is divisive and damaging to all people.
"Do you have the same concerns when new entities are set up in the Pakeha world?"
There is really no such thing as a 'pakeha world'. Pakeha are only rarely grouped together as a single homogenous people as Maori are. This is part of the injustice the crown continues to promulgate on Maori. Just look again at Tāmaki. Iwi fighting iwi through the courts to assert and challenge mana whenua status, all due to the crown failing to understand the complexities and tribal nature of Maori.
"I am confident that these issues if they come to anything will be dealt with in positive ways by grown up people."
I am not, and by way of example I point to the situation in Tāmaki between Maratuahu and Ngati Whatua, which is anything but 'grown up'.
What about when groups like Federated Farmers are either represented on a board or committee or a farming group is on a board that has an urban as well as farming role. Sure there are differences of opinion but the groups manage to get together and make the decision that they believe is best for the region, group, etc. Then there are the differences of opinions between people with different land uses.
I don't think the Crown is putting the entities together with the idea that there will be quarrels over mana, roles etc. They have put groups together in regions so that the particular concerns re water are able to be listened to. They would be far from expecting a uniform view. They are being entrusted with the role to work to find the best for the waters in the region. What is best for that region or part of a region may not be looked on as being the best for another region.
I do not know enough about the Auckland situation to comment and I suspect you do not either. I think you are commenting on some outward manifestation of a disagreement as it looks like today.
I have not read anything from you that this current outward manifestation has a historical basis and what this basis is. For example some overlapping rohe are due to the freeze on boundaries at the Treaty time perpetuating different boundaries, or not recognising that there may have been allegiances to other tribal groups outside the rohe and the situation is fluid……in other words you are putting a pakeha spin on what seems to be current history.
If say you lived in Belgium and had a role in Govt it would be the kiss of death if you did not understand the back story/history of the Flemish people and the Walloons. Even people who move there today learn about the two differing 'parts' of their country. It is not seen as a weakness to possibly have differing views.
Intermarriage between Flemish and Walloons is low. Nor do they clash. They keep themselves to themselves. The big exception is Brussels and its outlying districts, where the two cultures rub up against one another.
and
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/belgium/articles/an-introduction-to-the-flemish-walloon-divide/
I would give your views & concerns a bit more credence if you were able to say……
I am not sure if both groups have had a treaty claim completed etc etc. The Water entity that these tribes belong to has other groups as well. If this fighting persists into a different situation ie the water situation there are enough Maori/people of mana who would work behind the scene to get the groups together to work something out or to say 'pull your head in' and be listened to.
Having had experience with Maori groups in two facets of my working life in two very different spheres heath and lands going back 30 or so years I can confidently say that the decisions that came out after representation was widened were streets ahead of those decisions that went before.
Something had to be done about water.
As long as the groups are able to settle down and do their work for a period of time then I foresee good things going forward. If this turns into a political football like education and health have at previous elections then we will be mired in some less than optimum arrangement that won't improve anything.
You appear to have a profoundly rose tinted view of iwi politics and how it is manipulated by the crown.
"I do not know enough about the Auckland situation to comment and I suspect you do not either."
I am close to the situation in Auckland, and I happen to know the situation between Tāmaki Collective iwi is prearious, and the government is culpable.
"I am not sure if both groups have had a treaty claim completed etc etc. The Water entity that these tribes belong to has other groups as well."
You strike right at the heart of one of the issues dividing Tāmaki iwi. Some have settled, some haven't. There is even division within individual iwi about this process.
"They have put groups together in regions so that the particular concerns re water are able to be listened to. "
Yes, but individual iwi are already engaged in this process with their local councils. It is inevitable that powerful elites will govern over those already doing the work.
"I am not sure if both groups have had a treaty claim completed etc etc."
Maratuahu is an iwi collective that is dominated by Hauraki power elites within Ngati Maru. They have used smaller iwi to gain a foothold in Tāmaki, and to assert their power to the detriment of iwi with much stronger mana whenua claims. This has all been aided and abetted by the crown, particularly under the last national government. It is a window into all that can go wrong when iwi groups are muscled into large collectives, particularly when substantial natural resources are involved.
Rose tinted or on the ground experience? I'm opting for on the ground experience as I stated before, or perhaps I am an optimist!
"Rose tinted or on the ground experience? "
All good. As I've said before, I respect your experience, even if we disagree. Have a great day.
.
Red (@ 2.4)
Hit the nail squarely on the head.
The relatively small cadre of Noble Savage Paternalists, Critical Theory Cult members (and their [rather more numerous] opportunistic fellow-travellers) are nothing if not profoundly anti-democratic … but, you see, it's "all in a good cause" … and, after all, affluent upper-middle professionals “know best”.
Given it's only political theatre, no.
Meh, governments have always done sneaky stuff like that. Bad law making to effect bad policy (3Waters generally).
[you made a typo in your e-mail address that triggered Auto-Moderation. Please be more careful next time – Incognito]
Mod note
Apologies…was using my cell phone in combination with fat fingers.
So it's a great result if your side do it but it would be terrible if someone with different political ideas did the same?
You're behaving like those people who claim to be in favour of free speech only when the person is saying something they agree with. When they hear something they don't like they want them shut out of the conversation.
In this case what makes you think that those people on the right of New Zealand politics would do this? The only ones in favour of this sort of thing, at least in the last 50 or so years in our country, have been those who still think that Stalin and Mao were wonderful paragons of virtue.
Labour should do the same for other assets, such as KiwiRail.
The ACT party will have been salivating at the thought of the billions they could get by selling off water assets to foreign (probably mostly Chinese) companies when National give them a free hand to plunder the few remaining state assets when/if they win next year.
Ain't life a bitch, David?
More political symbolism than anything though? You can just repeal the entrenching clause with a simple majority, then repeal the public ownership clause. I guess the point is to make the fuckers explicitly repeal public ownership protection if they want to privatize.
With human beings perception is everything.
Symbolism is important.
Maybe – but rushing it through under urgency, with no debate – highlights a strategy for a future right government, to do exactly the same thing. Either reversing this – or 'entrenching' their own legislation.
Rushing it through has also not resulted in any media coverage. As far as I can see, it's not covered in either the Herald or Stuff – so the press release from Sage that was linked. was the first I'd heard of it.
It's pretty difficult to regard something as symbolic, if no one knows about it.
National have already announced that they'd repeal 3 waters (you can believe them, or not – but it's a policy plank) – if this provision is embedded in the 3 waters legislation – it'll simply get repealed along with the rest.
I believe provisions requiring a super majority can usually only be repealed via such a super majority vote.
No. It was covered up thread – by Sanctuary & Cricklewood.
It simply requires a 2-bites-to the-cherry process. First remove the clause requiring a super-majority (which only requires a majority), and then remove the legislation, which no longer has a super-majority clause.
There is, of course, the possibility that this prevention of sale with a super-majority clause, is not part of the 3 waters legislation – and is a separate Act on its own.
In which case, with the repeal of 3 waters (under a future right government), it would be an orphan. Preventing the sale of assets, by organizations which no longer own the asset, and potentially no longer exist.
If that is the case, I don’t think that the right government would cause even a ripple by repealing it.
It is worth noting that one of the features of 3 Waters is the entities ability to raise capital at a (supposed) lower premium….but that capital (debt) will need to be secured against the assets.
Ultimately it will need to be guaranteed by the Government (taxpayers) which shows the farce the whole reform is….the needed improvements should simply be funded directly by central gov and get rid of all the window-dressing costs.
They have actually fucked up the legislation,as the infrastructure cannot be used as a security against a loan,there were significant issues raised against the model by S&P, (the other agencies awaiting legislation b4 producing a note hence watch only).
This raises the questions of who is the owner,and who raises debt.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2022/0136/latest/LMS540266.html
Very good point. The reason why govt borrows cheaper than everyone else is not because of their asset base – which as S&P realised cannot be used as security – but because of their sovereign ability to tax.
Reflecting on this, I might imagine the big funders might look at who is controlling these assets, setting the budgets under 3W legislation, and decide the risk is rather higher than they are comfortable with.
The big funders already declined housing corp,which is why it is now being funded directly out of the government books,(funders have long memories and NZ has already seen default by an SOE).
Governments tax, providers charge for services.
Who owns the debt? and the infrastructure?
If the government ability to tax to pay the cost of debt is a thing, so is the providers capacity to charge to do the same.
So I suppose you are asking, if the party borrowing the money (and holding existing debt) is the one in charge of setting the price and collecting money.
The key part then is certainty, such as government guarantee.
PS If the infrastructure is not going to be ever sold, does that part matter?
No investor is going to lend to an entity where the ownership of the assets are unsure,and no rating agency will provide a rating where ownership is unsure.
Who owns the infrastructure,and who is responsible for the debt?
TMH – They, those who lend, will only lend to those whose assets they can take (thus only lend up to the value of the assets).
Alice – I have a credit card and no assets, coz I have a job that pays me money and if I do not use it to pay the card debt I get a bad credit rating.
Exactly…and why if any borrowing is to occur it will have to be guaranteed by the Government.
The whole 3 Waters story is a crock
The debt will have to lie on the government books,without the assets.The entity whatever it is there is no placement ( local authority,SOE,company government department etc) significant problems with remedies such as tort,as it may not even exist.
So the purpose of setting up the entities with all of the initial and ongoing costs is what?….politics.
And who pays for it?….those who have been told the purpose is to reduce the cost.
Bollocks
Someones idea at a group think retreat,where the narrative is being spun to fit the thinking.There is no efficiency,and it is a cost plus model,that will always be searching for funding mostly for wages for the unemployable elite ( aka as diselected list MP'S )
AKA sinecures
I agree that a mechanism similar to roading under NZTA with costs/responsibilities split between local and government – would have been a much lower cost and less controversial solution.
No one is arguing that some councils need assistance – whether that's with expertise or funding – in order to effectively manage their water assets.
Some (Wellington comes to mind) appear to need to have national water infrastructure standards in place – since it has apparently been too easy for them to defer maintenance/replacement in favour of funding for more politically-driven projects.
It is difficult to see the logical reasoning behind the collection of assets into super-regional groupings, which have nothing to do with watersheds or other geographical features (one crosses the Cook Strait!); this seems to have been entirely driven by their co-governance ideology.
However, this solution of a NZ Water Authority (setting standards, co-funding major infrastructure, and supplying planning expertise to water-asset-owning local governments) would not have had the 'benefit' of applying the co-governance provisions of He puapua – which, it seems that Labour have signed up to, without campaigning on.
And, I suspect this kind of central-local government partnership, was what most people had in mind, when they read the provision in the Labour 2020 manifesto
“Labour will reform New Zealand’s drinking water
and waste water system and upgrade water
infrastructure to create jobs across the country.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13uhcVrn8HUXEoWoPQgkJYjHX_d_Za-O0/view
I really don’t think that anyone envisaged removal of water assets from local government, multiple layers of bureaucracy and co-governance.
Anyone within a hundred kilometre radius of the consultation would have known asset removal and a new bureaucracy were coming.
You don't have to ask Groundswell. You could also ask Watercare, DairyNZ, DCANZ, Fonterra, Synlait, Massey Uni, AgResearch, anyone at Lincoln, LGNZ, Irrigation NZ, Ngai Tahu Holdings, and anyone else with a reasonable agribusiness presence in Wellington.
I seriously dispute this.
I don't think that anyone knew prior to the 2020 election, exactly what the Government's plans were.
And they most certainly did not lay it out clearly for the electorate at that time.
Yes, there has been subsequent consultation…. that, however, does not make a mandate.
Yep, but why choose a more effective solution when you can spend billions on something completely unnecessary?
Who would you trust long term to keep water assets locally owned?
Would you trust a central government owned entity under National to keep it? If anyone remembers the Key government.
Indeed would you trust a central government owned entity under Labour to keep it? If anyone remembers the Lange government.
Would you trust an NZ-listed corporation to keep it here? If anyone remembers what occurred to our sharemarket in the early 1990s.
Who are the only people that invest in this country with a 1000-year return period?
"Who are the only people that invest in this country with a 1000-year return period?".
Why don't you answer your own question? Who do you think really does that?
"Who would you trust long term to keep water assets locally owned?"
No-one, really. But the best way to at least beat the odds is to have the decisions made by those closest to democratic accountability, which is certainly not the new water entities.
"Who are the only people that invest in this country with a 1000-year return period?"
Who are these people? There is certainly no-one in this country with a 1000 year history of managing water resources as they currently exist.
"There is certainly no-one in this country with a 1000 year history of managing water resources as they currently exist."
Best un-statement of the year!
It matters not who you trust….if you wish to borrow you have to agree to the terms the lender offers…..irrespective of who you are.
And nobody is going to lend billions unsecured
The Chinese
It's hard to say they don't have the electoral mandate for 3 Waters reform, so all power to them.
Even John Key had to push through his 51% asset selloff in the teeth of a very large and well organised referendum, because it was done in full public and parliamentary view (now I'll just go back to my library and re-read the 1987 Labour manifesto 🙂 .
There were 300 000 signatures opposing asset sales. Wherein we got screwed royally, and now they're running down the assets to pay out to shareholders.
Opposition to 3 waters has been a highly politicised pack of press sound bites and barely concealed racist fearmongering signifying nothing but contempt for truth, Maori and current government. There is no comparison, only a simpering sycophantic press beholden to corporate plunder.
there are solid rationales for not supporting 3 waters, that have nothing to do with racism or anti-Labour sentiment. One of which is the insistence of Labour and the left that any opposition is morally bankrupt. This isn't so much seeding division, as throwing bucketloads of compost on the already thriving saplings.
It feels like third term Clark government in terms of contempt for the people. If Ardern's Labour were 8 years in, sure, try and get as much passed as possible. But 5 years in?
I don't disagree with your comments at all, but here's another angle. Any government wishing to achieve meaningful reform is constrained by a three year parliamentary term, which abbreviates consultation, the crafting of laws and the passage of those laws through the parliamentary process. I am opposed to the 3waters reform for a number of reasons, and no amount of time will necessarily change a governments ideological position, but a longer governance term would at least allow for better law making.
it's tricky. We can look at the UK as an example of the problems with a 5 year term for instance. If the NZ norm is three terms, imagine Nact being in power for 15 years.
I think there are better ways to mend democracy. Once would be to start a shift to participatory democracy. While I appreciate that Labour didn't have a lot of time (mainly because of the pandemic) to consult well on 3W, I think the problem is that Labour is ideologically opposed to such. They are old school neoliberalised, which means they're parental rather than sisterly. This is certainly how 3W has come across: 'we know what is best, we will figure how how to get you to behave the way we want'.
(yes, yes Labourites, #notallLabour).
Four years could work. It would give extra time for meaningful but well managed reform.
Luxon is working for the agribusiness lobby which has opposed every single piece of environmental management that this government put up. Unpriced unregulated water is the core profit centre of dairy, which in turn is our number one export.
no need to greensplain that stuff to me, I already know. It's a non-sequitur to my comment.
All that free water is good for pastoral farmers though,at present with irrigation load down 100mw.
https://niwa.co.nz/static/climate/smd_anom.png?1234
I agree with you Weka. One of the issues is that the government has been portraying the situation as binary, so that those opposing 3 Waters must by default be in favour of the status quo, and therefore continuing the current uncoordinated shambles of water management.
However, the binary proposition is not at all accurate, and there are likely other viable options to achieve the goals of 3 Waters.
Is the current management of water an uncoordinated shambles?
Is the Government claiming it is that?
lots of things have become an uncoordinated shambles under neoliberalism. I haven't seen Labour taking responsibility for their part in that, but the issue is more that Labour decided what to do and then told us. Many of us could have predicted that trying to dictate such changes would be met with resistance. Why not bring people along instead?
.
Spare me your wild-eyed bully-boy character assassination of a hefty majority of the New Zealand public you self-centered, self-righteous authoritarian prig. When you radically redefine terms like racist, weaponising them with a view to closing down all political debate around highly controversial major reforms then those terms rapidly lose all their force.
Oh and try not to confuse Corporate Iwi with Maori in general, sweetpea.
Sad old man.
"sweat pea"?
Not, "son"
Why not?
Good enough for John Key.
@ Swordfish
Good grief.
And now trying to comment on things Maori. The idea that there are a whole bunch of Maori who do not or cannot whakapapa back to their eponymous ancestor or know where to go to get to know this is really a myth. There just are not Iwi and the rest. Groupings had to set themselves up if they wanted to have Treaty issues identified recognised and settled. These same groupings received any settlement monies.
Ngai Tahu for instance had set themselves up years before their claim and had school/university scholarships for the children/young adults from very early on. No doubt they fall into your category of 'Corporate Iwi'.
This invective or poison pen cannot be good to write, it is certainly horrible to read such bitterness.
DB Brown.
As I wrote earlier up the thread, the government need to give their opponents a lot more moving targets to divide their focus. If the election is focused on this heavily 'politicised' issue Labour will lose the election
.https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27-11-2022/#comment-1923216
It's pretty easy to say. If they had a mandate, there wouldn't be protest from councils and from across the political spectrum.
Just flat wrong.
The government has consulted to death with local government, and there is no part of the mandate for the legislation that needed to be provided by local government.
this is why we have such a poor form of democracy. Just don't complain if Labour lose the election next year.
You talk such fact-free crap. We are and remain one of the most democratic countries on earth.
The Greens are thankfully standing with the Maori caucus of Labour.
lol. This is like people who argue that NZ farming is the best in the world for climate. It's a very low bar (and it's a stupid comparison).
If NZ has a better form of poor democracy than most other countries doesn't mean that we don't have a poor form of democracy. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Is there a better, more doable form of democracy?
I think so. We have representative democracy. I'd like us to look at participatory democracy.
I don't know that they have a mandate for this reform.
No denying that the 2020 election brought in the LP with an unprecedented and overwhelming majority.
However, their 2020 manifesto simply stated:
“Labour will reform New Zealand’s drinking water and waste water system and upgrade water infrastructure to create jobs across the country.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13uhcVrn8HUXEoWoPQgkJYjHX_d_Za-O0/view
It was entirely silent on co-governance – which has emerged as a significant government policy plank.
I really don’t think that anyone envisaged removal of water assets from local government, multiple layers of bureaucracy and co-governance – from the above policy statement.
Not quite, although it was not explicitly stead and spelt out, the seeds & spirit were already there, of course:
[see also https://www.labour.org.nz/maori-manifesto]
I think Labour set out a principle there Incognito, they don't actually say what they would do. I don’t think it is realistic for voters to think “what if commitment to partnership means giving Maori soverign authority over water? what if they include geothermal water and coastal water, when this legislation is suppose to be about water supply?”
Lack of transparency.
https://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2022/11/a-strange-hill-to-die-on.html
This is an interesting question posed by Chris Trotter. Why are Labour prepared to die in a ditch for this piece of legislation?
It also seems now it is five waters as coastal water and geothermal water has been added to the legislation. Even Megan Woods Minister of Energy was surprized to hear about geothermal.
Why does this legislation need to be rushed through under urgency?
I have no idea where the quoted text comes from because it is not in the piece by Trotter that you linked to!? In any case, it complete and utter BS because to state, even hypothetically, “partnership means giving Maori soverign [sic] authority” is the worst kind of counter-propaganda one could think of.
Trotter has dug up a hill so that he can bark at it and scent-mark by lifting up his Right leg. His only achievement is adding more confusion to the pile and he should know better but yet he does what he does, which begs the question as to why he does it? Is he a useful idiot, a pawn, or a puppet master?
The problem with that bit of manifesto fluff is that it could mean almost anything in practice. And worse still govt media funding rules ensure there can be no public debate on the topic that is not pre-approved by the govt.
What New Zealanders almost certainly did not sign up for however, is the separate development path this Maori caucus are taking us down.
I can link that ‘fluff’ to Three Waters, retrospectively, of course.
I was not aware that NZ media couldn’t discuss legislation that’s under (active) consideration by Parliament. In any case, I see plenty of ‘debate’.
Anybody who argues that Three Waters came out of nowhere is either naïve and ignorant or takes their cues from propagandist such as Groundswell and other subversive parties who scream theft, stealing, and secrecy without transparency and consultation.
For the record, I am quite uncomfortable with the bilateral Pākehā-Māori dichotomy that seems to dominate all discourse and even the hapless PR efforts coming from Government.
So am I.
I would like to see it be taken further, changed, and improved. Many others want it gone by lunch time and for it to never resurface again, ever.
So says David Parker in relation to the reforming of the RMA. He talks about resisting the pressure for the 50:50 representations.
Will his caution transfer into the 3Waters? What if consultation with Iwi was reduced but still important?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/fran-osullivan-david-parker-pushes-back-against-co-governance/JYKLY5CFZJHSPPMTOE6VGLFZJY/
That reads very nicely until you get to the last few words.
" equality for all".
Really? They certainly don't seem to mean all the people of New Zealand do they?
The scale of consultation both this term and last term is massive.
You would need to be living under a rock to not have the opportunity to make a submission, and over multiple years.
Ad
Prior to the 2020 election.
Three Waters Review
"The Review, beginning in mid-2017, ran in parallel to the latter stages of the Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water, which was set up following the campylobacter outbreak in 2016. Up to 5500 people were ill as a result and four people are thought to have died from associated causes"
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-waters-review
"The Three Waters Review was published in January 2019"
"In 2019, the Sixth Labour Government announced plans for regulatory changes in response to the Three Waters Review"
"On 28 January 2020, Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, released Cabinet papers and minutes setting out intentions for reform of service delivery and funding arrangements for the three waters services nationwide"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Waters_reform_programme
Three Waters Reform Programme
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-Programme#:~:text=The%20delivery%20of%20drinking%20wat
Why do you not quote the following line out of the Wiki article.
"Details of the proposed reforms were announced in October 2021". That is when we first found out what they had in mind. It is surely not a coincidence that it was long after the 2020 election and until then almost no members of the general public were aware of what was being planned.
October 2021 was the 'Launch of nationwide programme'. It pays to read the entire piece and as stated: "In 2019, the Sixth Labour Government announced plans for regulatory changes in response to the Three Waters Review"
"On 28 January 2020, Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, released Cabinet papers and minutes setting out intentions for reform
If the only thing that you can actually point to, prior to the 2020 election is Mahuta's paper to the Cabinet – which is the most impenetrable bureaucratese – and certainly not understandable by ordinary voters – I don't think that you have a strong case for 'everyone knew'
Yes. People knew that some kind of water reform was on the cards – in some areas. They certainly didn't have any inkling that it would involve mandatory removal of water assets from local councils, implementation of a vast new bureaucracy (with minimal democratic control), and co-governance.
None of which was part of the Labour manifesto in 2020. Don't you think that such a radical change *should* have been put to the public?
IIRC – it was only after the election that Mahua revealed that she'd lied to the local Councils, and there was no option for them to 'opt out'
And, there was certainly no co-governance outlined prior to the 2020 election. Whether you believe Willie Jackson & Ardern that this wasn't deliberate – is up to you.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/he-puapua-willie-jackson-pleased-nz-first-and-winston-peters-didnt-see-report/B4LOHMCMJJFJAKZHRGSP7ZEXEQ/
You can believe whatever you want Belladonna. The information was put out publicly prior to the 2020 election see 3.2.3.3
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-waters-review
8 JULY 2020 New water services bill for safe drinking water
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-water-services-bill-safe-drinking-water
"Labour will reform New Zealand’s drinking water and waste water system and upgrade water infrastructure to create jobs across the country"
https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/sites/default/files/2020-10/Labour_Manifesto_2020.pdf
"Councils had been given the right to opt out of the reforms, but after councils largely opposed the reforms as proposed, Mahuta last week made them mandatory, saying they were a "quantum shift in the way water services are delivered" which would require every council to be involved"
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018818799/three-waters-minister-responds-to-outpouring-of-opposition
Oh. Please link to the information prior to the election in 2020 – where Labour proposed to remove water assets from Council control, and implement co-governance within the resulting water ownership agencies.
I know you can't – because Labour was very careful not to spell out the specifics of the proposal. He puapua, the co-governance agenda, was carefully hidden, not only from the public, but from their coalition partner. Labour never released any information about how they proposed to upgrade water systems and infrastructure – until well after the election – you'd think if it was such a "quantum shift" they'd have campaigned on the change.
Your own quote shows that Mahuta lied to Councils about their ability to opt out.
Your first link is only to the establishment of the (entirely uncontroversial) water regulation agency. The one which National, at least (I don't know what ACT's policy is) have committed to retain. It has nothing to do with shifting water asset control away from local bodies, or with co-governance – the two highly controversial aspects of the 3 (now, apparently 5) waters legislation.
I have linked to the 'information prior to the election in 2020' which includes "the local government sector, water stakeholders and iwi/Māori will have ample opportunity to consider the detail of the Bill"
The Minster did not lie. The link explains why it became mandatory.
Water assets have not been removed from council control.
"Councils will collectively own the water services entities providing services for their district, on behalf of their communities"
https://www.dia.govt.nz/three-waters-reform-programme-frequently-asked-questions
Winston Peters cannot feign ignorance, he was one of the cabinet ministers that agreed to the formation of a working group
"In August 2019, the Declaration Working Group (DWG) was established by the Labour – New Zealand First government"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Puapua
It's not 5 waters and Co-governance is not new. The previous Key National govt had a number of co-governance arrangements, so does the Christchurch council for example. imo those who oppose co-governance, like the opposition that had no issue with it under National, are racebaiting.
Indeed. Three Waters is in full progress but Co-Governance has been put on ice for more engagement.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/co-governance-work-put-on-ice
This is recommendable and laudable because we cannot make decisions collectively if/when we don’t understand each other.
Yes.
From that same article:
And frankly this is core problem a large majority of New Zealanders have when they see the words 'de-colonisation' and 'co-governance'. The only document in the public domain that spelled out what what this might mean in practice is Hepuapu – yet while the govt denied it was policy to our faces, it proceeded to implement important aspects of it anyway.
Then if anyone objects to this wholesale re-writing of the New Zealand constitutional foundation, and the renaming of government departments and placenames, all with zero consultation much less democratic accountability – we are openly abused as racists, red-necks or white supremacists.
Voters might not understand all the nuances – but we know when we are being gaslighted.
"This is recommendable and laudable because we cannot make decisions collectively if/when we don’t understand each other."
Its laudable and recommended not so much because we "dont understand each other" but rather because those driving the change out of the public gaze have yet to explain the practicalities of their position and how it is supposed to operate in a democracy….
likely for the simple reason they are unable to.
Redlogix He PuaPua is a discussion document.
The authors said "disappointed at coverage of the report being focused primarily on what are perceived as “bigger controversial ideas” and not necessarily on the wide range of proposals within the document"
"the group’s role was to put down a number of ideas that would enable, or encourage, further discussion.
“It was never meant to be government policy by any means,” she says. “It was meant to be more of a conversation starter.’’
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/125740914/the-contentious-he-puapua-plan-explained
Which does not explain why so many important parts of it have become become the defacto direction of this govt's policy with remarkably little discussion.
That’s textbook reductionism and binary logic resulting in false dichotomies and other flawed logic.
He Puapua does not exist in isolation nor does it draw sharp borders. Essentially, you’re arguing that this Government is ignoring its Treaty obligations “with remarkably little discussion”. Of course, this is nonsense.
Redlogix. Pretty much in line with the 2020 manifesto, for example, establishing a Māori Health Authority.
@Incognito
He Puapua is not about the Treaty of Waitangi obligations. It is a response to the UNDRIP agreement, whose origins lay in the need to address the obvious vulnerability of isolated, barely uncontacted groups of indigenous people who lacked effective access to civil rights and legal status. This was, and remains a worthy and legitimate cause.
The problem is that Maori are arguably not an indigenous people in a legal sense. The primary effect of the Treaty of Waitangi was to give them full status and civil rights as citizens of the British Empire almost two centuries ago; a status subsequently transferred to the Crown.
As Seymour points out the UNDRIP agreement attempts to unravel this status by allowing Maori to rip up the Treaty of Waitangi, opt out of their citizenship of the New Zealand state, and set up a separate jurisdiction. This might well be stating the case bluntly, but is consistent with the tenor and direction of the not only the more vocal Maori ethno-nationalists, but stated Maori Party policy and public statements.
Only in a reductionist binary world view could this be accurate and you are confirming my previous comment.
https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/a-matou-whakaarotau/te-ao-maori/un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples
"The Minster did not lie. "
The original plan was for Council's to opt in or out. When it became obvious the whole scheme was wildly unpopular, the Minister reneged. I guess you’re allowed to break a promise when your golden idea is tanking.
But then after Cabinet agreed to compulsion, they "kept councils guessing for months about whether they would be forced into Three Waters reforms, having already agreed to pursue such a strategy,"
Blatantly bad faith consultation. Do you ever wonder why an allegedly good idea has had so much deception in its promotion and passage?
So, first Mahuta said Councils could opt out, and then, when it became apparent that many of them wanted to do just that, she reversed herself and said it was mandatory. That's a lie in my book. Or does 'optional' mean 'so long as you choose they way I want you to'?
I said control, not ownership. The two are quite different (according to the 3 waters proponents … there are different perspectives).
The whole argument for 3 waters is that the proponents believe that Councils can't be trusted with water infrastructure. That's why it's being removed from their control.
Winston Peters has claimed consistently that he had no knowledge of He puapua. And that's been confirmed by Willie Jackson – in a rather smug self-congratulatory comment.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/he-puapua-willie-jackson-pleased-nz-first-and-winston-peters-didnt-see-report/B4LOHMCMJJFJAKZHRGSP7ZEXEQ/
I've made no comment on whether co-governance is new or not (again, opinions vary). I have said that Labour did not make it clear that the new water entities would be co-governed – before the 2020 election. Still waiting for your evidence to prove this wrong.
5 waters. Really. Now including coastal and geothermal water – rolled in at virtually the last moment.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jacinda-ardern-government-moves-to-address-three-waters-confusion/JSS5HBZTRVEKHMNN6IJ25Q64FQ/
"Winston Peters has claimed consistently that he had no knowledge of He puapua. "
Chris Trotter wrote about this in May last year.
He makes the point that "He Puapua was presented to the then Minister of Maori Development, Nanaia Mahuta, in November 2019.", but that it was not at any stage put to Cabinet prior to the 2020 election. Trotter states that "Had Peters known of its existence, he would have fallen upon He Puapua as a gift from God." Which of course he would have.
"That did not come back to Cabinet, it had not been approved by Cabinet and it was not government policy"
"That was the reason it had not been released, because it did not have our final sign off and it was not our final declaration plan"
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/441818/he-puapua-report-government-has-nothing-to-hide-ardern
You can think whatever you like, but as noted Belladonna, councils didn't opt in, hence the change.
"Water assets will remain publicly owned by councils, who play a key role in the entities' governance and priority-setting processes"
https://www.lgnz.co.nz/reforms/three-waters/#:~:text=Three%20Waters%20%E2%80%93%20drinking%2C%20waste%20and%20storm&text=Water%20assets%20will%20remain%20publicly,for%20a%20quick%2C%20easy%20overview.
"the local government sector, water stakeholders and iwi/Māori will have ample opportunity to consider the detail of the Bill" see 3.2.3.3.2.1
"Labour is committed to our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi"
https://www.labour.org.nz/news-maori-manifesto
Incognito said it best in his post.
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27-11-2022/#comment-1925413
He Puapua never went to cabinet. See
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27-11-2022/#comment-1925412
It's not 5 waters.
"the prime minister insisted that was not the case.
“I’ve read the legislation, it does not change the scope. It’s a reference to the impact that if you pump for instance wastewater into the ocean, it has an impact on coastal water,” Jacinda Ardern said on Tuesday.
But she acknowledged that part of the bill could be clarified"
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jacinda-ardern-government-moves-to-address-three-waters-confusion/JSS5HBZTRVEKHMNN6IJ25Q64FQ/
Circumstances changed.
"The vast majority of councils have expressed some opposition to the reforms and Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta has been considering councils' feedback after consultation with the sector closed early this month.
Councils' opposition ranges from concerns about the management model of the entities and calls for the reforms to be delayed, through to total opposition to the legislative changes.
Having considered the feedback, Mahuta today confirmed councils would be required to take part in the reforms, with all entities to be operational by 1 July 2024.
"This is an all-in approach that will require legislation and it will require every council to be a part of a quantum shift in the way that water services are delivered.
"The legislation is a mandated decision."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/454334/three-waters-reforms-to-be-mandatory-for-councils-nanaia-mahuta
The only "circumstance" which changed was the Councils saying – 'no'.
Mahuta was unable to accept this, and reneged on the explicit and implicit understanding that they could opt out.
Now, maybe she was foolish to give them that option. Or believed that she could effectively sway (not to say bribe) them to support her proposal. Or any other combination of factors which made her believe that no councils would take up that option.
But, her reaction when they did, made it clear that it was never a 'real' choice. She lied, when she said that it was.
"Circumstances changed."
Yes. The Councils saw through the the insulting and patronising $3.5m advertising campaign (which was cut short after invention by the PSC), the nonsense of the WICS modelling and all the other disingenuous bs and said 'no thanks'.
I'm not so sure Mahuta lied, or whether she just badly misread the room.
Already been covered Belladonna, you can make up what you want.
That's your opinion tinderdry6.
Nope. Not covered – the links you provided don't show anything like what you are claiming.
Specifically:
They knew that both of those choices were highly controversial (or had the potential to be so) – and deliberately didn't campaign on them.
I might also ask for a link for pre-2020 election statement that the shift in control of water assets to the regional agencies would be mandatory (rather than optional). But we've already established that Mahuta reversed her policy over this – well after the election – so you certainly won't find one.
The person who is making up stories – is you.
The topic has been well traversed Belladonna, you only want to believe in your own opinions.
All I'm asking for is links.
The fact that you can't provide them, gives me excellent reason to believe that you've just made this story up – because it suits your 'Labour is always justified' narrative.
Feel free (as I can see that you do) to believe whatever you want.
But, you haven't convinced anyone else.
I feel that this conversation is just about played out.
Links are included in the posts. Not my problem that you choose not to accept them. That's entirely up to you. It was never about convincing anyone. The thread was finished a while back, you just carried it on because it was all about what you thought.
"The one which National, at least (I don't know what ACT's policy is) have committed to retain"
Which is what?
"they're going to repeal and replace. With what? It's a very simple question—a question that has been posed for four years. What are they going to replace it with? They have no ideas. They have no policies. That is not a debating point..that is a matter of fact"
https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=230618
I'm talking about the, entirely uncontroversial, "Taumata Arowai", tasked with establishing, monitoring and enforcing water quality standards (taking over from the MoH).
That was the bill from mid 2020 that you linked to. Nothing to do with the subsequent 3 waters legislation (well, apart from both being 'water')
National have repeatedly committed to retaining this – and practical solutions – as outlined below. What they don't support is a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy, and a co-governance model – which means that the new water agencies have nothing to do with natural watersheds (one crosses the Cook Strait, for heavens sake!) – but are constructed around iwi – i.e. accidents of history, rather than geography)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/126361729/three-waters-four-entities-several-problems
You may not like their solutions – but you can't deny that they've given some. Unlike, I may point out, Labour prior to the 2020 election.
We are going around in circles here, it's been covered in previous posts.
Taumata Arowai and councils will be working together.
"We will work collaboratively across Aotearoa including with whānau hapū and iwi Māori, Crown entities (such as the Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Health and Department of Internal Affairs), public health units (PHUs) along with regional, city and district councils, drinking water suppliers, water management companies and all people of Aotearoa"
https://www.taumataarowai.govt.nz/about/who-we-are/
As previously noted National do not have any solutions, they have already walked back on co-funding.
"Let's take their point of view that was stated today—that they're going to repeal and replace. With what? It's a very simple question—a question that has been posed for four years. What are they going to replace it with? They have no ideas. They have no policies. That is not a debating point, Mr Speaker; that is a matter of fact. As I was going through the first reading speeches, I came up with an absolute doozy from Matt Doocey—a Doocey doozy. He promised in his first reading speech that the National Party will co-fund this required investment. He said it once and once only. He contributed to the second reading debate, he contributed to the committee of the whole House, and he contributed again today. Did he say it? Did he say it—my foot. Someone got in his ear and said that what he had just committed the National Party to was a $92.5 billion-dollar bill, while, at the time, they were proposing $11billion worth of tax cuts. Even Paul Goldsmith knows that one doesn't add up. The fact of the matter here is that the National Party are left wanting. I'll take the opportunity to give the ACT Party credit. I don't agree with them ever but at least they come up with policies. At least they come to the table with an alternative"
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20221207_20221208
If you can't see the difference between a crown agency regulating standards (Taumata Arowai) – and ones (new co-governed authorities) which remove control of water from local bodies – then there is, indeed, little point in discussing further.
Taumata Arowai won't be working with Councils at all – once the new authorities are set up under the 3 waters legislation, Councils will no longer have any control or responsibility for 3 waters infrastructure and/or delivery. Management of those 'assets' (some more valuable than others) will pass into the hands of these new agencies.
Still waiting on the information that Labour released pre the 2020 election, outlining their actual programme (co-governed bodies taking control of water infrastructure assets from local government).
And round and round we go.
"the information that Labour released pre the 2020 election" Already covered in previous posts, including links.
Will there be a loss of (local) control/influence over water assets/services?
"Water services will remain in the ownership of the community they are serving. Continued public ownership of three waters water services and infrastructure"
https://www.dia.govt.nz/three-waters-reform-programme-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=Will%20there%20be%20a%20loss,bottom%20line%20for%20the%20Government.
Taumata Arowai specifically states who they will be working with, which includes councils. See link above.
You really do seem to be struggling with understanding the difference between ownership and control.
Once the 4 territorial water agencies are in place Taumata Arowai will work with them. Since the Councils will no longer be controlling or responsible for water infrastructure (in the ideal world that Mahuta apparently envisages). That is the entire point of 3 waters!
imo it's you that's struggling Belladonna, you can make up whatever you want to suit your own narrative.
Or just repeal and replace the legislation entirely.
Because every river system and lake and fish in the country has no need for it at all.
Presumably any policy to repeal this would have to be in National and ACT's manifesto.
Not a vote winner IMHO.
Morale is good.
/
https://twitter.com/georgian_legion/status/1596557557342294016
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1595014893220012032
I have seen some really disturbing stuff of drones dropping grenades on Russian soldiers in trenches, and the soldiers not even reacting to the grenade explosions.
The theory is that they basically have hypothermia so bad that they are unable to respond, or perhaps already dead from hypothermia.
It isn't even winter over there yet, but the conditions are getting very cold already, and a lot of the Russian soldiers just don't have the gear to survive in those conditions. On the other hand, the Ukrainian soldiers are being supplied truck-loads of winter gear from the west.
The other thing is that the Ukrainians get regular rest and rotation whereas the Russian soldiers, not so much. So the Russians can be in freezing condition in wet clothes indefinitely. Sucks to be them.
It seems highly likely that 10s of thousands of Russian soldiers could freeze to death over the winter.
They'll continue sacrificing conscripts to hold ground while they re-group, train and resupply their regular army in preparation for the spring offensive.
Cruelty is their thing.
https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1596260019213062145
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1596507771519741952
The newshub piece opens with the insinuation that Russia has escalated things by hitting a NATO country with a missile. It had been known for over a week that this was in fact a Ukrainian missile. Shocking reporting.
Arse.
Now awaiting Generals January and February to arrive,as NH snow mass starts accumulating,Energy demand starts to increase and electricity tightness arrives.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/snow-extent-northern-hemisphere-highest-56-years-winter-cold-rrc/
Opinion piece by Russian politician Leonid Gozman.
Everyone, except perhaps Putin himself, understands that his regime is nearing its end. At the very least, discussions about the country’s future are being conducted in Russia as if neither Putin nor his system still existed. The question is: How exactly will the regime collapse?
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/11/23/how-exactly-could-the-putin-regime-collapse-a79451
All is not yet lost.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/479571/daniel-andrews-claims-historic-third-term-for-labor-in-victorian-election
“Deputy Premier Jacinta Allan said the electorate had responded to Labor's "positive agenda".”
BBC Radio 5 has good coverage for those too poor for Sky etc. Vamos Argentina
Use VIP.
Watching luxon on Q+A ,he says employment levels are unsustainable, ie:we need more unemployed, then in the next breath says national will sanction the unemployed as we have to many unemployed????
Fuckers said it with a straight 😑
Tame is carving him up on his bullshit around his tax cut back peddling, gold
There is some acrobatic logic amongst the ruling class lately that is for sure.
• Reserve Bank (to paraphrase): ‘unemployment must rise to help combat inflation’
• Employers: ‘drastic labour shortage, more migrant workers urgently needed!’ of course they are talking about cheap labour, and they don’t want Labour’s median wage requirement to apply.
The Natzos have demonised dirty filthy bennies since…oh I don’t know…John Key’s mum was on a widows benefit? No, it was actually from the Rogernomics era that they really waded in, continuing with market rents for state housing, paid tertiary, MOAB, ECA, and Jenny Shipley’s “dob in a bludger” TV ads.
The spin off from employers wanting immigration and residency rules relaxed is that NZ workers who have just rediscovered their class power and have organised for reasonable increases will be on the back foot again.
Luxon needs to go. Put him in charge of MBIE or something like that.
National has better performers than him. Just before xmas would be the time to do it.
I don't think you're going to get support from the Left for this.
They are (or should be) delighted with Luxon's foot-in-mouth gaffes – and want the NP to keep him for as long as possible.
Luxonstacticisalwaystotalkasfastaspossiblesothatnobodycanunderstandwhathesays
becausewhatLuxysaysmakesnosensebutifhesaystenthingsinfivesecondsthennobody
canchallengehimorquotehimoranythingitsveryannoyingbutheknowsthatitsbetter
nottobeclearaboutanythingwhentherearegapingholesunfortunatelyitworks
you might want to rewrite that
I understood it fine – been learning Luxon-tongue.
Economics admittedly are beyond my comprehension. But I can't figure out why Luxon says we need more unemployed and at the same time NZ should open the doors to thousands of immigrants. Does Luxon ever have any human empathy to those who are made unemployed, who had been working and earning and paying their way and living their lives to then find themselves on a benefit, trying to make do on a lesser income.
It actually was ironic to see ordinary, everyday people out shopping, getting some good deals, this weekend, despite Adrian Orr wanting us to spend less. He and the well off may now buy a $30 bottle of wine instead of a $40 bottle but their "less spending" still enables them to have a very very comfortable lifestyle. Perhaps this week I shall buy a packet of wine biscuits instead of mint creams.
You have got right into one of the key contradictions in the NZ National Party/Reserve Bank/Employers position on un/employment.
Employers have counted on a low wage economy for many years, since 1991 in fact. With COVID public health measures which saved thousands of lives, the migrant tap was turned off. Businesses large and small have had to cough up decent rates and fairer treatment when workers get organised, or are just in demand, and they do not like it one little bit.
I'm not an economist either, nor do I agree with Luxon at all, but the rhetoric behind needing more immigration is that the NZ workforce is essentially tapped out, so NZ needs more workers generally. In addition to measuring unemployment, Stats NZ also measure employment via the employment rate and it's currently at record highs, so there's some truth to that. However, more migrants also create jobs (since they have to eat, be housed, clothed etc) as well as fill jobs, so mostly Luxon's rhetoric is relying on migrants displacing Kiwis.
More migrant labour increases the GDP/aggregate demand by population increase. Orr says he wants a 1% decline in the total GDP to diminish inflation.
Is no one in National capable of discussing the importance of increasing productivity per person via investment in capital equipment (crop harvesting/machine milking)?
The upward pressure on wages is the best we have seen in decades.
This has also put pressure on businesses to invest in robotics rather than keep propping up crap jobs. Great to see McDonalds go full automated ordering. Most supermarkets are converting away from cashiers. More dairy farms are going full robotic. More orchards are investing in stronger mechanisation – as they should have for decades.
Death to shit jobs.
Luxon just wants the rent off the back of workers. Cheap.
On that topic.
I was in the supermarket last night (not my usual, but a poncy new one in an inner-city suburb). Took my purchases to the self-checkout, and was interested to observe the two checkout operaters having a nice chat to each other, since all customers were using the self-check options (the store layout guides you that way – you have to make a special effort to divert to a staffed point).
However, the supermarket still needed to have staff on duty at the self-check – both to fix the issues with the equipment (mis-scanning, false readings, weight of produce issues, etc.) [every customer had one or more of these while I was checking out my groceries] and (presumably) to act as a deterrent against people rorting the system (not scanning expensive items, etc. – or just walking out the door). Presumably they also have to have live staff to sign off on things like alcohol purchases.
So, no need to checkout staff, but still need for staff to fix the poorly operating automated systems, and security staff (not a job I'd want…. in the current climate)
I really don't follow this as a argument but will say that the staff supervising the self check outs at my local are those who have years of experience, eyes in the back of their heads and you'd be most unwise to do anything there to get their attention in a bad way. In my supermarket the aisles and self scanners seem to work together so that if queues at one of the other get a bit long the customers are diverted.
Both the supermarkets I go to I have not seen a lessening of staff overall as a result of self scanning.
On Musk's carbon credit earner.
https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1596518711359590401
File it under weird and wonderful thoughts of Rimmer, the hologram.
For a proponent of small, invisible government not intruding in our lives, Seymour has a funny way of showing it.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/11/act-proposing-to-fine-parents-of-truant-children-to-tackle-new-zealand-s-shocking-attendance-rates.html
Of course we know what this is about. It's about constant surveillance of (electronic registers), and pressure upon (fines), Maori and PI peoples until they start acting a bit more white.
That's interesting. AFAIK – schools all do this now. Certainly as a parent, I can see the online attendance record of my teen – which records several different kinds of absence: justified (i.e. sick or at an off-site educational, sporting or cultural event), unjustified (not there for any other reason), late (didn't turn up on time), and overseas posting (not on holiday – but where kids remain on the roll while the family is posted overseas (military, diplomatic, etc.)).
The MoE require schools to record this data (I know this, because I had a long debate with the school over what a cultual event was – and whether my kid (attending the event) was a justified or an unjustified absence – and eventally had to go to the MoE for a ruling.)
I had *assumed* that the schools were reporting this to MoE – though possibly not daily – but, at least each term. Perhaps they aren't.
But would you want your child's attendance record published for all to see, "in real-time, (to build) a national focus on the issue"?
Your questions is pointless as no one is proposing any such thing.
What is the proposal? To demonise schools in low income areas rather than kids individually?
Statistics are reported on a school-wide basis – so no individual kids are identifiable.
I actually think that – if the MoE don't have this information – they need it.
And, it seems, that most schools are providing this – and have been doing so electronically, since 2020. Initially to measure the impact of Covid, and latterly to measure the long term effect of Covid on attendance rates
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/data-services/national/attendance
In the reporting to date – I understood that the only figures they had were the raw in class/not in class ones. Which astounded me. Since my local school certainly has the detailed ones, and I understood they were reporting them.
It would be useful to have some clarity from the MoE over what data they are currently receiving. And, whether the issue is that not all schools are providing this.
In order to know whether there is an issue with attendance, they need to tease out the ones who are sick or at a kapa haka festival, or sports tournament or performing in a musical – from those who are not at school for 'unjustified' reasons.
Seymour's Party says in its education policy, "The Ministry of Education will be greatly reduced in its size." Those who are there will be administering the voucher education system which will be the basis of or organisation of schooling.
I guess there'll be office workers doing all the stuff around attendance at school including the "on-the-spot fines." Mind you Act might have it that the bureaucracy for that will be tendered out to private contractors.
In our city that probably means that the company which has the contract from the council to do with dogs, registration, strays and so on, will deal with kids not getting to school. That probably would fairly sum up the Act attitude to non-attendance at school.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/school-attendance-and-truancy-act-party-proposes-on-the-spot-fines-for-parents-of-chronically-truant-children/A3A5RTFSPVE4TEXYEC7CB47J2Q/
It would seem that 'fines' would be triggered by 30% non-attendance. The 'spot' business, means that it doesn't have to go to court (which is currently required for a truancy case, before a penalty can be imposed).
What I was actually expecting from ACT, was sanction on the benefit (and/or Working for Families payments) for parents whose kids don't attend school and/or intervention by State Housing agencies for resident parents whose kids don't attend school.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/130543641/south-islanders-set-to-be-offered-virtual-gp-specialist-services
While I might not the sharpest knife in the drawer, what I'm getting from this Stuff article is GPs through Corporate Tend, are offering virtual medical services for $51 a consultation, where you can have a virtual consult on the hoof so to speak! I stand to be corrected if I am wrong in this regard.
There are many Kiwis who are deaf myself included, so this type of service would not be suitable, as face to face interaction in every day life is very important for those of us with various disabilities, particularly deafness, while at the same time also telling a GP a lot about their patient’s health which I doubt can be successfully achieved in a virtual situation.'
I hope this new trend is optional, because IMO medicine has no place in the corporate world, such as that which is being offered here, or vice versa!
But it may be preferable.
https://twitter.com/watinthe_/status/1596283267455807488
My local GP offers this service as an alternative to an in-person consultation.
It's not appropriate for every person, or for every consultation. But it's an option which works well in some situations.
Having it as the only option would indeed create issues.
It is not a matter of either/or, but of both/and, i.e., there’s a place for both, side-by-side, which will free up precious resources, ideally and hopefully.
You might like reading this article in the New Zealand Medical Journal:
https://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/hospital-based-specialists-perspectives-of-teleconsultation-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-open-access
Mary_a, Just a personal tale of online consulting.
Our son has a condition which was misdiagnosed by a Gold Coast surgeon.
However, after talking with our son by 'phone about members of the family who had died early, said surgeon opted to send the video of the operation of the bowel folds, to a specialist in Sydney.
Grant was then in a tele conference with the Gold Coast surgeon and the Sydney Specialist, who diagnosed life threatening growths which had to be removed each year, before they become cancerous.
This practise of mixed face to face telephone and online consults has been used successfully in Australia for years, at least ten to my knowledge, both public and private services.
Face to face where it would not work, though It does lessen visits for frail patients .
It seems in Grant's case, virtual consults have proven positive Patricia. That's great👍
Thanks for the info and I hope Grant continues to make good progress.
Thanks Mary-a, there is an app which changes speech to written text for the deaf, so Grant tells me.?? I don't know more, but the internet may have more info. Cheers and thanks for your good wishes.
A recent side benefit of the online consult, was that a colleague was able to record her online consultation with a specialist. Which meant she could re-play it later, and make sure she had the correct information, as well as sharing it with her daughter (making sure the family had the correct info as well).
Really useful – as it's common for information to just be lost, misunderstood, or even just not heard at all, in what is sometimes a tense and difficult discussion.
Protests spreading across PRC opposing draconian zero-Covid policies.
https://twitter.com/EmilyZFeng/status/1596772018653126656
https://twitter.com/kevinkfyam/status/1596751715189280769