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.
Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My top six things to note around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the week to July 27 were:1. The Minister for Ford Rangers strikes againTransport Minister Simeon Brown was again the busiest of the Cabinet ministers this week, announcing an ...
You got a fast carAnd I want a ticket to anywhereMaybe we make a dealMaybe together we can get somewhereAny place is betterYesterday’s newsletter, Trust In Me, on the report of abuse in state care, and by religious organisations, between 1950 and 2019, coupled with the hypocrisy of Christopher Luxon ...
New Zealand is again having to reconcile conflicting pressures from its military and its trade interests. Should we join Pillar Two of AUKUS and risk compromising our markets in China? For a century after New Zealand was founded in 1840, its external security arrangements and external economics arrangements were aligned. ...
The ‘50 Shades of Green’ farmers’ protest in 2019 was heavy on climate change denial, but five years on, scepticism and criticism about the idea that pine forests can save us is growing across the board. File photo: Lynn GrievesonTL;DR: Here’s the top six news items of note in climate ...
This morning the sky was bright.The birds, in their usual joyous bliss. Nature doesn’t seem to feel the heat of what might angst humans.Their calls are clear and beautiful.Just some random thoughts:MāoriPaul Goldsmith has announced his government will roll back the judiciary’s rulings on Māori Customary Marine Title, which recognises ...
In 2003, the Court of Appeal delivered its decision in Ngati Apa v Attorney-General, ruling that Māori customary title over the foreshore and seabed had not been universally extinguished, and that the Māori Land Court could determine claims and confirm title if the facts supported it. This kicked off the ...
Earlier this week at Parliament, Labour leader Chris Hipkins was applauded for saying that the response to the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care had to be “bigger than politics.” True, but the fine words, apologies and “we hear you” messages will soon ring ...
TL;DR: In news breaking this morning:The Ministry of Education is cutting $2 billion from its school building programme so the National-ACT-NZ First Coalition Government has enough money to deliver tax cuts; The Government has quietly lowered its child poverty reduction targets to make them easier to achieve;Te Whatu Ora-Health NZ’s ...
Kia ora. These are some stories that caught our eye this week – as always, feel free to share yours in the comments. Our header image this week (via Eke Panuku) shows the planned upgrade for the Karanga Plaza Tidal Swimming Steps. The week in Greater Auckland On ...
1. What's not to love about the way the Harris campaign is turning things around?a. Nothingb. Love all of itc. God what a reliefd. Not that it will be by any means easye. All of the above 2. Documents released by the Ministry of Health show Associate Health Minister Casey ...
Trust in me in all you doHave the faith I have in youLove will see us through, if only you trust in meWhy don't you, you trust me?In a week that saw the release of the 3,000 page Abuse in Care report Christopher Luxon was being asked about Boot Camps. ...
TL;DR: The podcast above of the weekly ‘hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers last night features co-hosts and talking about the Royal Commission Inquiry into Abuse in Carereport released this week, and with:The Kākā’s climate correspondent on a UN push to not recognise carbon offset markets and ...
TL;DR: As of 6:00 am on Friday, July 26, the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day are:Transport: Simeon Brown announced$802.9 million in funding for 18 new trains on the Wairarapa and Manawatū rail lines, which ...
The northern expressway extension from Warkworth to Whangarei is likely to require radical changes to legislation if it is going to be built within the foreseeable future. The Government’s powers to purchase land, the planning process and current restrictions on road tolling are all going to need to be changed ...
Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when publishedFirst they came for the doctors But I was confused by the numbers and costs So I didn't speak up Then they came for our police and nurses And I didn't think we could afford those costs anyway So I ...
Photo by Joshua J. Cotten on UnsplashWe’re back again after our mid-winter break. We’re still with the ‘new’ day of the week (Thursday rather than Friday) when we have our ‘hoon’ webinar with paying subscribers to The Kākā for an hour at 5 pm.Jump on this link on YouTube Livestream ...
Notes: This is a free article. Abuse in Care themes are mentioned. Video is at the bottom.BackgroundYesterday’s report into Abuse in Care revealed that at least 1 in 3 of all who went through state and faith based care were abused - often horrifically. At least, because not all survivors ...
Luxon speaks in Parliament yesterday about the Abuse in Care report. Photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty ImagesTL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy today are:PM Christopher Luxon said yesterday in tabling the Abuse in Carereport in Parliament he wanted to ‘do the ...
About a decade ago I worked with a bloke called Steve. He was the grizzled veteran coder, a few years older than me, who knew where the bodies were buried - code wise. Despite his best efforts to be approachable and friendly he could be kind of gruff, through to ...
Some of the recent announcements from the government have reminded us of posts we’ve written in the past. Here’s one from early 2020. There were plenty of reactions to the government’s infrastructure announcement a few weeks ago which saw them fund a bunch of big roading projects. One of ...
TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day or so to 7:00 am on Thursday, July 25 are:News: Why Electric Kiwi is closing to new customers - and why it matters RNZ’s Susan EdmundsScoop: Government drops ...
Hi,I felt a small wet tongue snaking through one of the holes in my Crocs. It explored my big toe, darting down one side, then the other. “He’s looking for some toe cheese,” said the woman next to me, words that still haunt me to this day.Growing up in New ...
Yesterday I happily quoted the Prime Minister without fact-checking him and sure enough, it turns out his numbers were all to hell. It’s not four kg of Royal Commission report, it’s fourteen.My friend and one-time colleague-in-comms Hazel Phillips gently alerted me to my error almost as soon as I’d hit ...
TL;DR: As of 6:00 am on Thursday, July 25, the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day were:The Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquirypublished its final report yesterday.PM Christopher Luxon and The Minister responsible for ...
The Official Information Act has always been a battle between requesters seeking information, and governments seeking to control it. Information is power, so Ministers and government agencies want to manage what is released and when, for their own convenience, and legality and democracy be damned. Their most recent tactic for ...
TL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy today are:Transport and Energy Minister Simeon Brown is accelerating plans to spend at least $10 billion through Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) to extend State Highway One as a four-lane ‘Expressway’ from Warkworth to Whangarei ...
I live my life (woo-ooh-ooh)With no control in my destinyYea-yeah, yea-yeah (woo-ooh-ooh)I can bleed when I want to bleedSo come on, come on (woo-ooh-ooh)You can bleed when you want to bleedYea-yeah, come on (woo-ooh-ooh)Everybody bleed when they want to bleedCome on and bleedGovernments face tough challenges. Selling unpopular decisions to ...
Please note:To skip directly to the- parliamentary footage in the video, scroll to 1:21 To skip to audio please click on the headphone iconon the left hand side of the screenThis video / audio section is under development. ...
Given the crackdown on wasteful government spending, it behooves me to point to a high profile example of spending by the Luxon government that looks like a big, fat waste of time and money. I’m talking about the deployment of NZDF personnel to support the US-led coalition in the Red ...
TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day or so to 7:40 am on Wednesday, July 24 are:Deep Dive: Chipping away at the housing crisis, including my comments RNZ/Newsroom’s The DetailNews: Government softens on asset sales, ...
As I reported about the city centre, Auckland’s rail network is also going through a difficult and disruptive period which is rapidly approaching a culmination, this will result in a significant upgrade to the whole network. Hallelujah. Also like the city centre this is an upgrade predicated on the City ...
Today, a 4 kilogram report will be delivered to Parliament. We know this is what the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State and Faith-based Care weighs, because our Prime Minister told us so.Some reporter had blindsided him by asking a question about something done by ...
TL;DR: As of 7:00 am on Wednesday, July 24, the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day are:Beehive:Transport Minister Simeon Brownannounced plans to use PPPs to fund, build and run a four-lane expressway between Auckland ...
NewstalkZB host Mike Hosking, who can usually be relied on to give Prime Minister Christopher Luxon an easy run, did not do so yesterday when he interviewed him about the HealthNZ deficit. Luxon is trying to use a deficit reported last year by HealthNZ as yet another example of the ...
Back in January a StatsNZ employee gave a speech at Rātana on behalf of tangata whenua in which he insulted and criticised the government. The speech clearly violated the principle of a neutral public service, and StatsNZ started an investigation. Part of that was getting an external consultant to examine ...
Renting for life: Shared ownership initiatives are unlikely to slow the slide in home ownership by much. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy today are:A Deloittereport for Westpac has projected Aotearoa’s home-ownership rate will ...
You're broken down and tiredOf living life on a merry go roundAnd you can't find the fighterBut I see it in you so we gonna walk it outAnd move mountainsWe gonna walk it outAnd move mountainsAnd I'll rise upI'll rise like the dayI'll rise upI'll rise unafraidI'll rise upAnd I'll ...
There’s been a change in Myers Park. Down the steps from St. Kevin’s Arcade, past the grassy slopes, the children’s playground, the benches and that goat statue, there has been a transformation. The underpass for Mayoral Drive has gone from a barren, grey, concrete tunnel, to a place that thrums ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections Global society may have finally slammed on the brakes for climate-warming pollution released by human fossil fuel combustion. According to the Carbon Monitor Project, the total global climate pollution released between February and May 2024 declined slightly from the amount released during the same ...
TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day or so to 7:00 am on Tuesday, July 23 are:Deep Dive: Penlink: where tolling rhetoric meets reality BusinessDesk-$$$’sOliver LewisScoop:Te Pūkenga plans for regional polytechs leak out ...
TL;DR: As of 6:00 am on Tuesday, July 23, the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day are:Health: Shane Reti announcedthe Board of Te Whatu Ora-Health New Zealand was being replaced with Commissioner Lester Levy ...
Health NZ warned the Government at the end of March that it was running over Budget. But the reasons it gave were very different to those offered by the Prime Minister yesterday. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon blamed the “botched merger” of the 20 District Health Boards (DHBs) to create Health ...
Long ReadKey Summary: Although National increased the health budget by $1.4 billion in May, they used an old funding model to project health system costs, and never bothered to update their pre-election numbers. They were told during the Health Select Committees earlier in the year their budget amount was deficient, ...
As a momentous, historic weekend in US politics unfolded, analysts and commentators grasped for precedents and comparisons to help explain the significance and power of the choice Joe Biden had made. The 46th president had swept the Democratic party’s primaries but just over 100 days from the election had chosen ...
TL;DR: I’m casting around for new ideas and ways of thinking about Aotearoa’s political economy to find a few solutions to our cascading and self-reinforcing housing, poverty and climate crises.Associate Professor runs an online masters degree in the economics of sustainability at Torrens University in Australia and is organising ...
The Finance and Expenditure Committee has reported back on National's Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. The bill sets up water for privatisation, and was introduced under urgency, then rammed through select committee with no time even for local councils to make a proper submission. Naturally, national's select committee ...
Some years ago, I bought a book at Dunedin’s Regent Booksale for $1.50. As one does. Vandrad the Viking (1898), by J. Storer Clouston, is an obscure book these days – I cannot find a proper online review – but soon it was sitting on my shelf, gathering dust alongside ...
History is not on the side of the centre-left, when Democratic presidents fall behind in the polls and choose not to run for re-election. On both previous occasions in the past 75 years (Harry Truman in 1952, Lyndon Johnson in 1968) the Democrats proceeded to then lose the White House ...
This is a free articleCoverageThis morning, US President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the Presidential race. And that is genuinely newsworthy. Thanks for your service, President Biden, and all the best to you and yours.However, the media in New Zealand, particularly the 1News nightly bulletin, has been breathlessly covering ...
A homeless person’s camp beside a blocked-off slipped damage walkway in Freeman’s Bay: we are chasing our tail on our worsening and inter-related housing, poverty and climate crises. Photo: Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy ...
What has happened to it all?Crazy, some'd sayWhere is the life that I recognise?(Gone away)But I won't cry for yesterdayThere's an ordinary worldSomehow I have to findAnd as I try to make my wayTo the ordinary worldYesterday morning began as many others - what to write about today? I began ...
TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day or so to 7:00 am on Monday, July 22 are:Today’s Must Read: Father and son live in a tent, and have done for four years, in a million ...
TL;DR: As of 7:00 am on Monday, July 22, the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day are:US President Joe Biden announced via X this morning he would not stand for a second term.Multinational professional services firm ...
A listing of 32 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, July 14, 2024 thru Sat, July 20, 2024. Story of the week As reflected by preponderance of coverage, our Story of the Week is Project 2025. Until now traveling ...
This weekend, a friend pointed out someone who said they’d like to read my posts, but didn’t want to pay. And my first reaction was sympathy.I’ve already told folks that if they can’t comfortably subscribe, and would like to read, I’d be happy to offer free subscriptions. I don’t want ...
National: The Party of ‘Law and Order’ IntroductionThis weekend, the Government formally kicked off one of their flagship policy programs: a military style boot camp that New Zealand has experimented with over the past 50 years. Cartoon credit: Guy BodyIt’s very popular with the National Party’s Law and Orderimage, ...
Day one of the solo leg of my long journey home begins with my favourite sound: footfalls in an empty street. 5.00 am and it’s already light and already too warm, almost.If I can make the train that leaves Budapest later this hour I could be in Belgrade by nightfall; ...
Do you remember Y2K, the threat that hung over humanity in the closing days of the twentieth century? Horror scenarios of planes falling from the sky, electronic payments failing and ATMs refusing to dispense cash. As for your VCR following instructions and recording your favourite show - forget about it.All ...
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts being questioned by The Kākā’s Bernard Hickey.TL;DR: My top six things to note around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the week to July 20 were:1. A strategy that fails Zero Carbon Act & Paris targetsThe National-ACT-NZ First Coalition Government finally unveiled ...
Summary:As New Zealand loses at least 12 leaders in the public service space of health, climate, and pharmaceuticals, this month alone, directly in response to the Government’s policies and budget choices, what lies ahead may be darker than it appears. Tui examines some of those departures and draws a long ...
The Minister of Housing’s ambition is to reduce markedly the ratio of house prices to household incomes. If his strategy works it would transform the housing market, dramatically changing the prospects of housing as an investment.Leaving aside the Minister’s metaphor of ‘flooding the market’ I do not see how the ...
As previously noted, my historical fantasy piece, set in the fifth-century Mediterranean, was accepted for a Pirate Horror anthology, only for the anthology to later fall through. But in a good bit of news, it turned out that the story could indeed be re-marketed as sword and sorcery. As of ...
An employee of tobacco company Philip Morris International demonstrates a heated tobacco device. Photo: Getty ImagesTL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy on Friday, July 19 are:At a time when the Coalition Government is cutting spending on health, infrastructure, education, housing ...
TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day or so to 8:30 am on Friday, July 19 are:Scoop: NZ First Minister Casey Costello orders 50% cut to excise tax on heated tobacco products. The minister has ...
Kia ora, it’s time for another Friday roundup, in which we pull together some of the links and stories that caught our eye this week. Feel free to add more in the comments! Our header image this week shows a foggy day in Auckland town, captured by Patrick Reynolds. ...
TL;DR : Here’s the top six items climate news for Aotearoa this week, as selected by Bernard Hickey and The Kākā’s climate correspondent Cathrine Dyer. A discussion recorded yesterday is in the video above and the audio of that sent onto the podcast feed.The Government released its draft Emissions Reduction ...
Save some money, get rich and old, bring it back to Tobacco Road.Bring that dynamite and a crane, blow it up, start all over again.Roll up. Roll up. Or tailor made, if you prefer...Whether you’re selling ciggies, digging for gold, catching dolphins in your nets, or encouraging folks to flutter ...
Waiting In The Wings:For truly, if Trump is America’s un-assassinated Caesar, then J.D. Vance is America’s Octavian, the Republic’s youthful undertaker – and its first Emperor.DONALD TRUMP’S SELECTION of James D. Vance as his running-mate bodes ill for the American republic. A fervent supporter of Viktor Orban, the “illiberal” prime ...
TL;DR: As of 6:00 am on Friday, July 19, the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day are:The PSAannounced the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) had ruled in the PSA’s favour in its case against the Ministry ...
Te Rangi e tu nei (The sky above us) Te Papa e takoto nei (The land beneath us) Tatou katoa te hunga ora (To us all the living) Tena koutou katoa (Greetings) ...
A late change to charter school legislation will cheat educators out of fair pay and negotiating power proving charter schools are just a vehicle to make profit out of our education system. ...
In 2004 te iwi Māori rallied against the Crown’s attempt to confiscate our coastlines and moana with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. This led to the largest hīkoi of a generation and the birth of Te Pāti Māori. 20 years later, history is repeating itself. Today the government has announced ...
It has been five and a half years since the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care was established to investigate the abuse of children, young people, and vulnerable adults within state and faith-based institutions. Yesterday, the final report - Whanaketia through pain and trauma, from darkness to light ...
The Green Party is calling on the Government to take action off the back of the International Court of Justice ruling on Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. ...
On Friday the International Court of Justice reaffirmed what Palestinian’s have been telling us for decades: that the occupation and colonisation of Palestinian lands by Israel is illegal and must end immediately. They also called for reparations for Palestinian’s who have lived under Israeli occupation since it began in 1967. ...
Labour calls on the Government to act after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories is illegal. ...
The 53.7 percent rise in benefit sanctions over the last year is more proof of this Government’s disdain for our communities most in need of support. ...
Aotearoa could be a country where every child grows up feeling safe, loved and with a sense of belonging in their whānau and community. But for some of our children, this is far from reality. Instead, they are trapped in a maze of intergenerational harm that they can’t escape on ...
Te Pāti Māori are calling for David Seymour to resign as Associate Health Minister in response to his call for Pharmac to ignore the Treaty of Waitangi. “This announcement is just another example of the government’s anti-Tiriti, anti-Māori agenda.” Said Co-leader and spokesperson for health, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. “Seymour thinks it ...
The soaring price of renting is driving the rise of inflation in this country - with latest figures from Stats NZ showing rents are up 4.8 per cent on average while annual inflation is at 3.3 per cent. ...
National’s Emissions Reduction Plan will take New Zealand further from the economy we need to ensure the next generation has a stable climate and secure livelihoods. ...
Following consultation with named parties and thorough consideration of privacy interests, the Green Party is in a position to release the Executive Summary of the final report from the independent investigation into Darleen Tana. ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon should be asking serious questions of his Minister for Resources Shane Jones now it’s been revealed he misled the public about a dinner with mining companies that he didn’t declare and said wasn’t pre-arranged. ...
Te Pāti Māori have submitted to the Justice Select Committee against the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill. The bill will further entrench racism in our justice system and fails to focus on rehabilitation. “Reinstating Three Strikes will empower a systematically racist system and exacerbate the overrepresentation of Māori in ...
The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is set to make a determination on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (RTA) Bill in the coming weeks. “This legislation will give landlords the power to kick our whānau out onto the street for no reason” said Housing spokesperson, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. “Their solution to the housing ...
“National’s campaign was about tackling crime and the best they can do is a two-year long Ministerial Advisory Group,” Labour justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said. ...
“There are more examples of charter schools failing their students than there are success stories. The coalition Government is driving to dismantle our public school system and instead promote a privatised, competitive structure that puts profits before kids,” Jan Tinetti said. ...
“This government is choosing to deliberately mislead and withhold information, keeping our people in the dark about this government’s agenda and the future of our mokopuna,” said co-leader and spokesperson for Health, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. The call comes after the demand from the Chief Ombudsman that Associate Minister of Health, Casey ...
“Today’s climate announcement by Simon Watts makes clear the National Government is simply paying lip service to meeting its climate change targets,” Megan Woods said. ...
National is choosing to make life harder for workers by taking away the rights our communities have fought hard for. Here's how they’re taking workers backwards. ...
Australia, Canada and New Zealand today issued the following statement on the need for an urgent ceasefire in Gaza and the risk of expanded conflict between Hizballah and Israel. The situation in Gaza is catastrophic. The human suffering is unacceptable. It cannot continue. We remain unequivocal in our condemnation of ...
Attorney-General Judith Collins today reminded all State and faith-based institutions of their legal obligation to preserve records relevant to the safety and wellbeing of those in its care. “The Abuse in Care Inquiry’s report has found cases where records of the most vulnerable people in State and faith‑based institutions were ...
Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden says the Government’s online safety website for children and young people has reached one million page views. “It is great to see so many young people and their families accessing the site Keep It Real Online to learn how to stay safe online, and manage ...
Tēnā tātou katoa, Ngā mihi te rangi, ngā mihi te whenua, ngā mihi ki a koutou, kia ora mai koutou. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and the invitation to speak at this 50th anniversary conference. I acknowledge all those who have gone before us and paved the ...
New Zealand’s payroll providers have successfully prepared to ensure 3.5 million individuals will, from Wednesday next week, be able to keep more of what they earn each pay, says Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Revenue Minister Simon Watts. “The Government's tax policy changes are legally effective from Wednesday. Delivering this tax ...
An experimental vineyard which will help futureproof the wine sector has been opened in Blenheim by Associate Regional Development Minister Mark Patterson. The covered vineyard, based at the New Zealand Wine Centre – Te Pokapū Wāina o Aotearoa, enables controlled environmental conditions. “The research that will be produced at the Experimental ...
The Coalition Government has confirmed the indicative regional breakdown of North Island Weather Event (NIWE) funding for state highway recovery projects funded through Budget 2024, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Regions in the North Island suffered extensive and devastating damage from Cyclone Gabrielle and the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Floods, and ...
Indonesia’s Foreign Minister, Retno Marsudi, will visit New Zealand next week, Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced. “Indonesia is important to New Zealand’s security and economic interests and is our closest South East Asian neighbour,” says Mr Peters, who is currently in Laos to engage with South East Asian partners. ...
He aha te kai a te rangatira? He kōrero, he kōrero, he kōrero. The government has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the aspirations of Ngāti Maniapoto, Minister for Māori Development Tama Potaka says. “My thanks to Te Nehenehenui Trust – Ngāti Maniapoto for bringing their important kōrero to a ministerial ...
Transport Minister Simeon Brown has thanked outgoing Chair of the Civil Aviation Authority, Janice Fredric, for her service to the board.“I have received Ms Fredric’s resignation from the role of Chair of the Civil Aviation Authority,” Mr Brown says.“On behalf of the Government, I want to thank Ms Fredric for ...
The Government is proposing legislation to overturn a Court of Appeal decision and amend the Marine and Coastal Area Act in order to restore Parliament’s test for Customary Marine Title, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “Section 58 required an applicant group to prove they have exclusively used and occupied ...
Regulation Minister David Seymour says that opposition parties have united in bad faith, opposing what they claim are ‘dangerous changes’ to the Early Childhood Education sector, despite no changes even being proposed yet. “Issues with affordability and availability of early childhood education, and the complexity of its regulation, has led ...
After receiving more than 740 submissions in the first 20 days, Regulation Minister David Seymour is asking the Ministry for Regulation to extend engagement on the early childhood education regulation review by an extra two weeks. “The level of interest has been very high, and from the conversations I’ve been ...
The Coalition Government is investing $802.9 million into the Wairarapa and Manawatū rail lines as part of a funding agreement with the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), KiwiRail, and the Greater Wellington and Horizons Regional Councils to deliver more reliable services for commuters in the lower North Island, Transport Minister Simeon ...
Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has announced his intention to appoint a Crown Manager to both Hawke’s Bay Regional and Wairoa District Councils to speed up the delivery of flood protection work in Wairoa."Recent severe weather events in Wairoa this year, combined with damage from Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023 have ...
Mr Speaker, this is a day that many New Zealanders who were abused in State care never thought would come. It’s the day that this Parliament accepts, with deep sorrow and regret, the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. At the heart of this report are the ...
For the first time, the Government is formally acknowledging some children and young people at Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital experienced torture. The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State and Faith-based Care “Whanaketia – through pain and trauma, from darkness to light,” was tabled in Parliament ...
The Government has acknowledged the nearly 2,400 courageous survivors who shared their experiences during the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State and Faith-Based Care. The final report from the largest and most complex public inquiry ever held in New Zealand, the Royal Commission Inquiry “Whanaketia – through ...
With a week to go before hard-working New Zealanders see personal income tax relief for the first time in fourteen years, 513,000 people have used the Budget tax calculator to see how much they will benefit, says Finance Minister Nicola Willis. “Tax relief is long overdue. From next Wednesday, personal income ...
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden says a bill that has passed its first reading will improve parental leave settings and give non-biological parents more flexibility as primary carer for their child. The Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill (No3), passed its first reading this morning. “It includes a change ...
Two Bills designed to improve regulation and make it easier to do business have passed their first reading in Parliament, says Economic Development Minister Melissa Lee. The Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill make key changes to legislation administered by the Ministry ...
New legislation paves the way for greater competition in sectors such as banking and electricity, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly says. “Competitive markets boost productivity, create employment opportunities and lift living standards. To support competition, we need good quality regulation but, unfortunately, a recent OECD report ranked New ...
Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden says lotteries for charitable purposes, such as those run by the Heart Foundation, Coastguard NZ, and local hospices, will soon be allowed to operate online permanently. “Under current laws, these fundraising lotteries are only allowed to operate online until October 2024, after which ...
The Coalition Government is accelerating work on the new four-lane expressway between Auckland and Whangārei as part of its Roads of National Significance programme, with an accelerated delivery model to deliver this project faster and more efficiently, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “For too long, the lack of resilient transport connections ...
Sir Don McKinnon will travel to Viet Nam this week as a Special Envoy of the Government, Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced. “It is important that the Government give due recognition to the significant contributions that General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong made to New Zealand-Viet Nam relations,” Mr ...
Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden says newly appointed Commissioner, Grant Illingworth KC, will help deliver the report for the first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons, due on 28 November 2024. “I am pleased to announce that Mr Illingworth will commence his appointment as ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters travels to Laos this week to participate in a series of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-led Ministerial meetings in Vientiane. “ASEAN plays an important role in supporting a peaceful, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific,” Mr Peters says. “This will be our third visit to ...
Construction of a new mental health facility at Te Nikau Grey Hospital in Greymouth is today one step closer, Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey says. “This $27 million facility shows this Government is delivering on its promise to boost mental health care and improve front line services,” Mr Doocey says. ...
New Zealand is committing nearly $50 million to a package supporting sustainable Pacific fisheries development over the next four years, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones announced today. “This support consisting of a range of initiatives demonstrates New Zealand’s commitment to assisting our Pacific partners ...
Associate Education Minister David Seymour says proposed changes to the Education and Training Amendment Bill will ensure charter schools have more flexibility to negotiate employment agreements and are equipped with the right teaching resources. “Cabinet has agreed to progress an amendment which means unions will not be able to initiate ...
In response to serious concerns around oversight, overspend and a significant deterioration in financial outlook, the Board of Health New Zealand will be replaced with a Commissioner, Health Minister Dr Shane Reti announced today. “The previous government’s botched health reforms have created significant financial challenges at Health NZ that, without ...
Minister for Space and Science, Innovation and Technology Judith Collins will travel to Adelaide tomorrow for space and science engagements, including speaking at the Australian Space Forum. While there she will also have meetings and visits with a focus on space, biotechnology and innovation. “New Zealand has a thriving space ...
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts will travel to China on Saturday to attend the Ministerial on Climate Action meeting held in Wuhan. “Attending the Ministerial on Climate Action is an opportunity to advocate for New Zealand climate priorities and engage with our key partners on climate action,” Mr Watts says. ...
Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones is travelling to the Solomon Islands tomorrow for meetings with his counterparts from around the Pacific supporting collective management of the region’s fisheries. The 23rd Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Committee and the 5th Regional Fisheries Ministers’ Meeting in Honiara from 23 to 26 July ...
The Government today launched the Military Style Academy Pilot at Te Au rere a te Tonga Youth Justice residence in Palmerston North, an important part of the Government’s plan to crackdown on youth crime and getting youth offenders back on track, Minister for Children, Karen Chhour said today. “On the ...
The Government has welcomed news the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) has begun work to replace nine priority bridges across the country to ensure our state highway network remains resilient, reliable, and efficient for road users, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.“Increasing productivity and economic growth is a key priority for the ...
Acting Prime Minister David Seymour has been in contact throughout the evening with senior officials who have coordinated a whole of government response to the global IT outage and can provide an update. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has designated the National Emergency Management Agency as the ...
New Zealand and Japan will continue to step up their shared engagement with the Pacific, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says. “New Zealand and Japan have a strong, shared interest in a free, open and stable Pacific Islands region,” Mr Peters says. “We are pleased to be finding more ways ...
New developments in the heart of North Island forestry country will reinvigorate their communities and boost economic development, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones visited Kaingaroa and Kawerau in Bay of Plenty today to open a landmark community centre in the former and a new connecting road in ...
President Adeang, fellow Ministers, honourable Diet Member Horii, Ambassadors, distinguished guests. Minasama, konnichiwa, and good afternoon, everyone. Distinguished guests, it’s a pleasure to be here with you today to talk about New Zealand’s foreign policy reset, the reasons for it, the values that underpin it, and how it ...
Last summer when Matairangi burned, Ginny and Tom stood at the window of their lounge, watching kākā shoot skyward from the burning trees. From the distance, they looked to Ginny like pages torn from books and thrown into a bonfire. It was Tom, voice tight, who told her it was ...
Opinion: The Canadian short story writer Alice Munro – winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2013 – died in May at the age of 92. Her work was about “the damage people inflict on one another in the name of love”, Deborah Treisman wrote in the New Yorker. ...
This month marks two years since the most powerful telescope ever built sent its first pictures back to earth. From its lofty vantage point, beyond the moon in orbit around the sun, the James Webb Space Telescope was tuned to observe the first stars and galaxies being born soon after ...
Comment: After Climate Change Minister Simon Watts’ preview several weeks ago, I had some optimism about the Government’s emissions reduction plan. Now I’ve read the discussion document, that hope has been dashed. How can the Government propose a plan that wants to take New Zealand taxpayers’ hard-earned money, and spend ...
Christopher Luxon: hurdles The little man from National jumps hurdles in his sleep. He’s quite good at it in his dreams and even though the reality doesn’t quite match up you have to give him credit for getting up every morning and crashing into the very first hurdle of the ...
Comment: It was a good two hours into the conversation when Tyrone Marks raised the most basic of questions when I first spoke to him in 2017. “They didn’t explain the things they did to me. They never told me why. And they still haven’t. There’s no explanation for it. ...
Madeleine Chapman rounds out Death Week on The Spinoff with a final recommendation. You can read all of our Death Week coverage here. Nothing forces you to reflect on your life and relationships quite like proximity to death. For those whose nearest and dearest have died, there are reasonably obvious ...
Whitney Greene takes us through her life in television, including the TV character she’d like to plan a funeral for and her cow lung catastrophe on The Traitors NZ. “If the phone rings, I have to answer it,” Whitney Greene from The Traitors NZ warns as we begin our My ...
Maddie Ballard reviews the debut essay collection of Pōneke writer Flora Feltham.In ‘The Raw Material’, the longest essay in Flora Feltham’s dazzling debut collection, the author heads out for a run after hours of weaving and sees the world turn to textile. “Pounding along the Parade, I saw the ...
Andy Christiansen, one half of the experimental rock-pop duo TRiPS, shares the tunes inspiring the band’s perfect weekend and new release. “Good speakers, good food, good music, no distractions”: that’s all you need to enjoy the psychedelic stylings of TRiPS, a new band formed by Fly My Pretties’ Barnaby Weir ...
Celebrating our quadrennial opportunity to become experts in a bunch of sports we never normally watch.The games of the XXXIII Olympiad are upon us. Paris will host this year’s showcase of sporting and athletic prowess, which means some late-night and early-morning viewing for us in Aotearoa.But what sports ...
The photograph is striking and beautiful, but also disturbing – a reminder that my love for John was often entangled in shame.The Sunday Essay is made possible thanks to the support of Creative New Zealand.In the spring of 1980, in Dunedin, shortly before his death, someone took a photograph ...
Get to know Babushka, our latest Dog of the Month. This feature was offered as a reward during our What’s Eating Aotearoa PledgeMe campaign. Thank you to Babu’s humans, Jo and Isabel, for their support. Dog name: Babushka (Babu for short) Age: 2Breed: Border Collie X poodleIf rescued, ...
Pacific Media Watch A Lebanese photojournalist who was severely wounded during an Israeli air strike in south Lebanon carried the Olympic torch in Paris this week in honour of her peers who have been wounded and killed in the field — especially in Gaza and Lebanon. Christina Assi of Agence ...
The first report in a five-part web series focused on the 15th Triennial Conference of Pacific Women taking place in the Marshall Islands this week.SPECIAL REPORT:By Netani Rika in Majuro Women continue to fight for justice 70 years after the first nuclear tests by the United States caused ...
Christopher Luxon has joined with Australia and Canada's leaders in voicing support for US President Joe Biden's ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The 2022 election brought the “teal wave” into parliament. The next election will test whether teals, who occupy what were Liberal seats, and other independents can maintain their momentum. Joining us on the Podcast ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Musgrave, Senior lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide Pixavri/Shutterstock A major Federal Court class action has been dismissed this week after Justice Michael Lee ruled there was not enough evidence to prove the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer. Plaintiff Kelvin ...
In The Week in Politics: politicians have to decide what to do about child abuse, Health NZ is booked in for major surgery and Darleen Tana returns. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Corbould, Associate Professor, Contemporary Histories Research Group, Deakin University Mainstream media are surprisingly muted at the prospect of the world’s most powerful nation being led for the first time by a woman – specifically a woman of colour, Vice President Kamala ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Bennett, PhD Student, Associate Research Fellow, Deakin University Last week, a drone delivery company called Wing (owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet) started operating in Melbourne. Some 250,000 residents in parts of the city’s eastern suburbs can now order food from ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Foo, Lecturer, Physiotherapy, Monash University pikselstock/Shutterstock In the next 40 years in Australia, it’s predicted the number of Australians aged 65 and over will more than double, while the number of people aged 85 and over will more than triple. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrina Grant, Research Associate, Power Institute for Arts and Visual Culture, University of Sydney Jonas Åkerström’s 1790 work, Session of the Accademia dell’Arcadia on August 17 1788.Nationalmuseum/Cecilia Heisser Ever wondered whether you’d have a better chance at winning an Olympic gold ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Jones, Program Lead, Food Governance, George Institute for Global Health wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock On Thursday, Australian and New Zealand food ministers at state, federal and national levels met to thrash out what’s next for health star ratings on packaged foods. Now, after ...
The Abuse in Care report found many Pacific survivors lost their connections to their culture and language, resulting in trauma that has been carried from generation to generation. ...
In the regulatory review, ECC intends to suggest that ERO focus on curriculum delivery reviews rather than the Ministry, because it’s not efficient or effective to have two agencies with radically different approaches climbing over each other. ...
Te Rūnanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori invites the current government to work in partnership with them to develop a pathway forward, including the development of a parallel pathway and meaningful policy and strategy for Kura Kaupapa Māori ...
If you haven’t started watching yet, Tara Ward begs you to reconsider. This is an excerpt from our weekly pop culture newsletter Rec Room. Sign up here. In the world of New Zealand reality television, we have many gems in our crown. There’s the delicious second season of the Celebrity Treasure ...
A new poem by Fiona Kidman. The clothes of the dead I did not keep my mother’s furry red beret for long nor the stringy scarves that adorned the necks of my aunts, although I have kept tag ends of gold, the rings and trinkets they wore, the brooches no ...
The government’s announcement that it will re-open the foreshore and seabed controversy by changing the rules on recognising centuries-old Māori customary title for a third time goes against the rule of law and New Zealand values,” Mr Tipa says. ...
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 Lioness by Emily Perkins (Bloomsbury, $25) Roarrrr! Perkins’ brilliant, award-winning, Marian-Keyes anointed, darkly funny, long ...
The 2004 Act vested ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, extinguishing any Māori claims to ownership and causing widespread outrage and protests among Māori communities. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Antje Deckert, Associate Professor (Criminology), Auckland University of Technology Getty Images Despite the connection between institutional harm and gang membership made clear in this week’s mammoth royal commission abuse-in care report, the government seems unlikely to soften its “get tough on ...
From Lewis Clareburt in the swimming to the start of the rowing – the first seven days of Paris 2024 promise to be big for New Zealand. There are few events that bring the country together quite like an Olympic Games. Nothing quite matches the excitement of getting up in ...
Groundbreaking local science just showed up in the most surprising of places: the season finale of The Kardashians. In the season five finale of The Kardashians last night, several members of the family gathered together in one of their signature empty, cream-coloured rooms to hear test results that had been ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University The Middle East is on the brink of a possibly devastating regional war, with hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah reaching an extremely dangerous level. Washington has engaged in ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Elizabeth Eades, Rheumatologist, Monash University Lupus is an inflammatory autoimmune illness, where the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks itself. Lupus can affect virtually any part of the body, although it most commonly affects the skin, joints and kidneys. The symptoms ...
A law firm that specialises in working with survivors of abuse in State care is disappointed that the Government fails to recognise that its boot camps can be directly compared to previous boot camps from the 1990s and 2000s. ...
Dying is a natural part of life, like updating your Wof or seeing your hairdresser, but without the word-of-mouth recs that help guarantee a good service. What if we changed that? Dying Reviews received by The Spinoff have had the names of organisations redacted while Hospice NZ collects further data. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonti Horner, Professor (Astrophysics), University of Southern Queensland Mike Lewinski/Flickr, CC BY On any clear night, if you gaze skywards long enough, chances are you’ll see a meteor streaking through the sky. Some nights, however, are better than others. At ...
Despite having no bars or other designated spaces for lesbians, Auckland boasts a small but mighty lesbian museum. So how did it get here? The past 18 months has brought increasing hostility towards the queer community across Aotearoa. Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s anti-trans rally in Tamaki Makaurau last March led to a ...
Poneke Antifascist Coalition has invited Wellingtonians to stand in solidarity with the Kanak people at 12pm today outside the French Embassy in Wellington. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow, Strategic Studies, Griffith University Drones are the signature technology of the Ukraine war. A few miniature aircraft designs were used in the war’s early days, but an incredible array of drones have now evolved. There are different types, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Slee, Associate Professor, Clinical Academic Neurologist, Flinders University Francisco Gonzelez/Unsplash Migraine is many things, but one thing it’s not is “just a headache”. “Migraine” comes from the Greek word “hemicrania”, referring to the common experience of migraine being predominantly ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lee White, Senior Lecturer and Horizon Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney Australia was slow to introduce minimum building standards for energy efficiency. The Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) only came into force in 2003. Older homes ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Sherwood, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney The past century of human-induced warming has increased rainfall variability over 75% of the Earth’s land area – particularly over Australia, Europe and eastern North America, new research shows. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Heynen, Program Coordinator, Sustainable Energy, The University of Queensland A temporary stadium in the Champ-de-Mars, ParisEkaterina Pokrovsky/Shutterstock As Paris prepares to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the sustainability of the event is coming under scrutiny. The organisers have promoted ...
A night of karaoke and community in a pub that feels like a memory. You’d barely even notice it, unless you knew to look. Tucked away behind a liquor store on busy Constable Street is the capital’s last great pub. Newtown Sports Bar is an emblem of the pub culture ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Wright, Professor in Marine Geology, University of Canterbury Louise Corcoran/Getty Images The decline in the number of doctoral candidates at New Zealand universities is a worrying sign for the country’s effort to build a knowledge-based economy. Aotearoa New Zealand’s ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laurie Berg, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney defotoberg/Shutterstock Migrant worker exploitation is entrenched in workplaces across Australia. Tragically, a deep fear of immigration consequences means most unlawful employer conduct goes unreported. On Wednesday, however, the government officially launched a ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania Paris is about to host its third summer Olympics. While we don’t yet know what the legacy of this year’s games will be, let’s take the opportunity to reflect on ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University In the wake of the assassination attempt on former US President Donald Trump, there were calls from bothsides of US politics, as well as internationally, to reduce the brutal, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keith Rathbone, Senior Lecturer, Modern European History and Sports History, Macquarie University Two high-profile assaults on Australians in Paris have raised concerns about security ahead of the Olympic Games. On Saturday evening, a young woman was allegedly sexually assaulted by a ...
Dying is inevitable and, so it seems, is it costing a lot, writes Stewart Sowman-Lund in today’s extract from The Bulletin. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.The cost of dying ...
The government took Joyce Harris's first baby and sent her off to a girls' home. Half a century on - and out of oceans of hurt - it asked her to be a mother figure. ...
It’s the deadliest fictional town in the country, but which death has been the most bonkers? Alex Casey looks back at 10 seasons of The Brokenwood Mysteries to find out. Warning: The following ranking story contains famous New Zealand actors appearing to be dead (not alive). The Spinoff has been ...
Water cremation is the biggest thing to happen to the death industry in the last 100 years. Alex Casey meets the people trying to bring it to Aotearoa. Through a set of mirrored doors down the industrial end of Christchurch’s St Asaph Street, death is getting a new lease on ...
NONFICTION 1 The Last Secret Agent by Pippa Latour & Jude Dobson (Allen & Unwin, $37.99) 2 The Life of Dai by Dai Henwood and Jaquie Brown (HarperCollins, $39.99) 3 A Life Less Punishing by Matt Heath (Allen & Unwin, $37.99) 4 Waitohu by Hinemoa Elder (Penguin Random House, $35) ...
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.
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.
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