|
|
3 waters
Apr 13, 2023 16:59:15 GMT 12
via mobile
eri likes this
Post by muzled on Apr 13, 2023 16:59:15 GMT 12
Tax payers union take on it.
Chris Hipkins scraps "Three Waters" by changing its name đ€Šââïž
Iâve seen politicians try to stretch the truth before, but watching Chris Hipkins with his new Local Government Minister, Kieran McAnulty, claim with a straight face that their Three Waters "refresh" is an improvement on Nanaia Mahutaâs version was a new low.
As you'll see below, his claims that there is no "co-governance" and that communities will "own" water assets rest on the assumption that he will be able to mislead New Zealanders but do a better job of spinning, sorry, "explaining" his policy than Nanaia Mahuta could. Under the hood though, almost nothing has changed.
The team and I are just back from the Wairarapa where we watched the announcement. It was bizarre. The Prime Minister had about 20 officials there (they nearly outnumbered the handpicked media in attendance), who looked extremely uncomfortable with your humble ratepayer representatives turning up.
The local mayor (who is actually one of the few who support of the changes!) was shafted. They didn't invite him to speak and when I said "let's hear from the local Mayor" the Prime Minister and Minister of Local Government said he could use the podium and they literally got in their ministerial car and left! The irony of the Prime Minister's message that today's announcement protects local voices was not lost.
Whatâs changed:
The name
Despite all those tens of millions spent on TV ads, âThree Watersâ branding and consultants, the main announcement today was a change to the name. We are now meant refer to the changes as âAffordable Water Reformâ (it must poll better...).
But as you'll see below, Chris Hipkins' policy is misleading in its name. The "Affordable Water Reform" is just a more expensive version of Three Waters!
The number of entities
Instead of forcibly removing waters assets from local councils and transferring them to four unaccountable, co-governed entities, we should all be grateful that the Government will now only forcibly remove water assets from local councils and transfer them to ten unaccountable co-governed entities.
Council representation
All councils will now have the right to have at least one representative on the Regional Representative Groups, but in some cases this will mean at least 13 representatives, which will have to be matched by a further 13 mana whenua representatives.
And remember the 75% majority clause for decisions where consensus cannot be reached? That still applies!
Instead of scrapping the controversial 50/50 co-governed regional representative groups, Chris Hipkins' "compromise" is to add six more!
The start date
Instead of coming into effect next year, the implementation has been delayed until 2025/2026. Far from putting Three Waters on the policy bonfire, Mr Hipkins' has just rebranded Nanaia Mahuta's leftovers and popped it in the fridge.
Whatâs staying the same:
Property rights still don't count, with "ownership" meaningless
Assets paid for by ratepayers will continue to be transferred to regional entities and councils will lose the traditional rights associated with ownership.
Democratic accountability undermined
Your local council will continue to be a very small voice on Regional Representative Groups of whom half will be unelected mana whenua appointees. While the co-governance might be more localised, it certainly isn't local democratic control.
Local control lost
Councils will still lose their ability to set the level of water charges and make decisions on investment. Voters/ratepayers can't sack those who will run the assets they've already paid for.
No ability to opt out (or leave)
Communities still won't be able to remove themselves from failing entities.
Chris Hipkins has hatched the same policy, but backs himself to spin it better
The Prime Minister really doubled down on the claim that councils will "own" the water assets under this "refreshed" model. But this is just recycling Nanaia Mahuta's old lines. It is a legal fiction â all of the normal rights of "ownership" are being extinguished.
Similarly, Mr Hipkins looked into the camera today and said that this isn't "co-governence". But in terms of the structure of the entities (boards appointed by 50/50 Regional Representative Groups requiring 75% majority, and subject to Te Mana o te Wai statements issued by iwi or hapu) nothing has changed!
Scorecard
The economics of fortune telling
The whole basis of the Three Waters reforms for the last 18 months has been an argument that "bigger is better" and more efficient. Here at the Taxpayers' Union, we've been extremely sceptical of that argument â not just with the experience with Auckland's "super city" but the advice the Government relied on was riddled with errors.
But even the Government's own analysis said that once you get past eight entities there are probably no efficiencies. The Government now wants 10, but still claims it's about saving money.
The reforms will continue to prioritise unnecessary bureaucracy and gold plating over what is the most appropriate water infrastructure for your local area while meeting health and environmental standards.
In fairness to the media, they did ask the Ministers whether ratepayers can expect to get rate decreases as a result of these changes. The Government's argument is that rates will "go up less" with these reforms and therefore households will be better off.
But the "savings" numbers are based on 30-year projections! Officials getting cost projections right over a three year period are like putting a finger into the wind. To extrapolate and summate "savings" out to 2054 isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Chris Hipkins is relying on Kiwis believing that centrally controlled, co-governed, water entities with no restrictions on gold plating, and no ability for voters to hold to account will save money. And, that the money "saved" by councils will be returned to you in the form of lower rates. Yeah right...
Same policy, different face.
|
|
|
|
3 waters
Apr 13, 2023 17:07:36 GMT 12
via mobile
fish likes this
Post by muzled on Apr 13, 2023 17:07:36 GMT 12
Anyone know if Te-Mana-O-Te-Wai statements are still in play? I'll eat my left nut if they've been removed. That's where the real power lies. In fact, Te Mana o te Wai statements arenât an example of co-governance and shouldnât be confused with it. They are edicts that hand direct control over water to iwi. For that reason, both Grant Robertson and Nanaia Mahuta have been able to state truthfully that co-governance doesnât extend beyond the Regional Representative Groups to the âoperational levelâ of Three Waters. What they have avoided saying is that Te Mana o te Wai statements kick in at the operational level and they give MÄori an awful lot of power. So much, in fact, that the pseudonymous political analyst Thomas Cranmer has described the âunbridled powerâ they hand to iwi and hapĆ« as âmind-bogglingâ. The statements are the dirty little secret within the Three Waters set-up that the government would much prefer the public didnât understand, or even know enough about to question. One astonishing feature is their vast scope. They can include anything from promoting MÄori employment and environmental protections to spiritual concerns and investment decisions. Even more astonishing is the fact that only iwi and hapĆ« can issue them. |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Apr 13, 2023 17:31:19 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Apr 13, 2023 19:59:52 GMT 12
Setting up jobs for all the spare Labour MPs that become available in October.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 14, 2023 16:47:22 GMT 12
Setting up jobs for all the spare Labour MPs that become available in October. They'll need a lot more than 10 water entities wouldn't they? |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Apr 15, 2023 9:45:00 GMT 12
Co governance is a sort of red herring.
The problem is these Ti Mata Why? statement things. Any Maori organisation can put one out and whomever the governance mob are they have to abide by the statement.
'Statement' can also be read as 'Demand'
So we have assets stolen from their owners, control of them given to unelected outfits that have no real responsibility but do have the ability to mortgage your house to borrow mega billions of bucks. Also the governance boards will be made up of people based on tribal seniority not experience so can you imagine the mess's that will come from this.
Did I hear someone say Mangawhai Wastewater fuck ups all over again?
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 15, 2023 13:32:59 GMT 12
Co governance is a sort of red herring. The problem is these Ti Mata Why? statement things. Any Maori organisation can put one out and whomever the governance mob are they have to abide by the statement. 'Statement' can also be read as 'Demand' So we have assets stolen from their owners, control of them given to unelected outfits that have no real responsibility but do have the ability to mortgage your house to borrow mega billions of bucks. Also the governance boards will be made up of people based on tribal seniority not experience so can you imagine the mess's that will come from this. Did I hear someone say Mangawhai Wastewater fuck ups all over again? Did you hear that Managawhai need a new treatment plant, and the whole scheme will run out of capacity shortly? They are just getting the costs estimates DOWN to another $90 million.... It does go to show though, that if you put in wastewater infrastructure, you will get growth, and fast. They are approaching the current 3,000 house capacity. I think when they built the scheme it the population was about 7 or 800 houses? The new plant will be designed for 5,000 houses. Same with Kumeu, Huapai and Riverhead. Watercare did everything they could to stop Rodney District Council getting that scheme over the line before the Supercity. Original population was about 800 houses across the whole area. Now it is a new city. Easy to solve the housing crisis, if you really wanted to. |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Apr 18, 2023 9:00:45 GMT 12
just in case all you peasants and colonisers were in any doubt, from Kiwiblog www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/04/we_own_the_water_says_tamihere.html(go to the KB link if you want the link to the Stuffed opinion piece) We own the water says TamihereJohn Tamihere writes:
"If we were playing Jeopardy, the answer is MÄori, and the winning question is, who owns the water?
What is bizarre to me is that people who have stolen an asset are now having a debate about the rights over it.
We reject co-governance because we want to have the appropriate conversation about the elephant in the room: how did PÄkeha get to the table on a 100%
MÄori-owned asset?"
So there we have it clear as day â the assertion that water is owned 100% by Maori. Yep nothing less than the liquid responsible for life on earth is owned by Maori.
And people wonder why there is going division in New Zealand. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Apr 20, 2023 7:53:24 GMT 12
just in case all you peasants and colonisers were in any doubt, from Kiwiblog www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/04/we_own_the_water_says_tamihere.html(go to the KB link if you want the link to the Stuffed opinion piece) We own the water says TamihereJohn Tamihere writes:
"If we were playing Jeopardy, the answer is MÄori, and the winning question is, who owns the water?
What is bizarre to me is that people who have stolen an asset are now having a debate about the rights over it.
We reject co-governance because we want to have the appropriate conversation about the elephant in the room: how did PÄkeha get to the table on a 100%
MÄori-owned asset?"
So there we have it clear as day â the assertion that water is owned 100% by Maori. Yep nothing less than the liquid responsible for life on earth is owned by Maori.
And people wonder why there is going division in New Zealand.I watched JT on bomber Bradbury's 'The Working Group' where he and Damien Grant 'discussed' how JT thinks Maori own the water. He came across as thoroughly unhinged, along with bitter and twisted. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Apr 20, 2023 8:09:15 GMT 12
Latests from Thomas Cranmer.
I caught up with a mate last week who has his snout in the trough working on 5 waters. He had previously argued only good things about it but his first comment this time was - 'what a total cluster, both parties are farkn hopeless'!
Interesting comment below about Ngati Whatua Orakei (NWO) not having a seat at the table. After watching how Tainui (ie - Mahuta's clan) came upto the Kapa Haka day a few months ago and that useless bludger Tuku Morgan stood up at the Powhiri and told NWO that Tainui owned the land in Auckland... It would seem reasonable to think that given Mahuta was in charge of 5 waters she specifically excluded NWO from the table. Coz none of these tribes hold grudges do they now...
Open in app or online
Hipkins Puts Three Waters Back on the Table
The Prime Minister announces changes to the controversial reform but we are left with the same problems that existed last year - only multiplied.
CRANMER
Last week saw Labourâs biggest policy headache, the Three Waters reform, return to the political fray. When Parliament adjourned for the summer recess twelve weeks ago, the government was widely viewed as having lost its grip on the reforms amid accusations that Three Waters had become Five, and suspicions that underhand tactics had played a role in the entrenchment of a provision of the WSE Act.
Itâs no surprise therefore that in Chris Hipkinsâ first Cabinet meeting as Prime Minister on 25 January, he approved the proposed overseas travel of Minister Mahuta to India departing shortly thereafter on Waitangi Day. The former Minister for Local Government who had, until the beginning of this year, overseen this major reform for the government has spent a significant amount of time out of the country ever since.
The new Three Waters, reborn as the Affordable Water Reform, was presented to the public by Prime Minister Hipkins and newly-appointed Minister for Local Government, Kieran McAnulty last Thursday.
The headline item was that the four mega-entities have now been expanded to ten smaller regional entities to allow for greater council representation. Representation on the Regional Representative Groups has been a point of contention for some time for both councils and iwi. NgÄti WhÄtuaâs Ngarimu Blair raised the topic before Christmas, pointing out that despite being Aucklandâs largest iwi, NgÄti WhÄtua did not have a seat on the Auckland and Northland RRG.
At the time, Minister Mahuta did not want to move away from the four mega-entity model, and also rejected increasing the number of representatives on each RRG from the stipulated twelve. She stated that, in her experience with Treaty entities, governing and decision-making became difficult once the number of members exceeded twelve. However, under pressure at the end of last year, Mahuta eventually relented and allowed RRGâs to consist of twelve or more representatives.
Now that the water services entities have also expanded to ten, it will be interesting to see if the government reduces the representatives on each RRG back to twelve or leaves them uncapped. The effect of both of these changes is that weâve gone from four entities with twelve representatives each to ten entities with an uncapped number of representatives. Exactly the scenario that Minister Mahuta was trying to prevent for reasons of good governance.
Itâs a good illustration of how tinkering with an already flawed structure has only succeeded in multiplying the costs and complications.
It was also noteworthy that during his announcement last Thursday, Prime Minister Hipkins mentioned Te Mana o te Wai statements and added, âThere is also an ability for Te Mana o Te Wai statements [to be issued]. And weâve introduced an equivalent for other significant interested parties in water use to also have a say in thatâ.
This has also been a significant bone of contention for some time although Te Mana o te Wai statements only began to feature in the public discussion at the end of last year. When the independent working group comprising mayors and iwi representatives considered the reform in early 2022, some mayors proposed that both councils and mana whenua should have input in Te Mana o te Wai statements.
The point was knocked back by iwi, particularly by Tuku Morgan, who was of the view that the statements should only be for mana whenua. Itâs a hugely significant issue because the statements allow iwi and hapĆ« to express their aspirations in the widest possible terms, for instance in relation to economic or employment aspirations. Each water service entity is then under an obligation to implement these requests and itemize any that have not been actioned in its annual report.
These statements will be funded by the water service entities so they will be substantial documents covering a wide range of issues. Itâs not clear how the entities will prioritise and reconcile competing statements and how this will impact on its primary role of undertaking the water infrastructure upgrade. Similar concerns were raised by smaller iwi during the public submission phase of the Billâs passage through Parliament.
In any event, the Water Services Entities Act already contains a mechanism for annual public consultation with community groups in order to take feedback and gauge satisfaction from consumers. Itâs not clear if this was what the Prime Minister was referring to when he mentioned that an âequivalentâ to Te Mana o te Wai statements would be included in the reforms. Clearly, an annual consultation falls well short of the implementation requirements relating to Te Mana o te Wai statements.
There also remains a serious concern that these statements have the potential to overwhelm the water services entities and introduce delays and complications to the infrastructure upgrade.
This is particularly relevant when the financing arrangements are considered. The governmentâs ad agency has done its job by proposing a new name which they hope will appeal to the public. These reforms are now affordable. That may or may not be the case but hopefully this moniker will encourage greater scrutiny of the proposed debt financing that will fund the upgrade.
I have written on the topic at some length last year but in summary the debt is high octane. The governmentâs own documents which it has shared with the global ratings agency Standard & Poorâs, described the financial risk profile of the debt as âaggressiveâ. That assessment reflects both the amount of debt being raised and also the debt service requirements. Although the debt is interest-only, the interest expense is so significant that there is barely any free cashflow remaining after payment of operating costs and interest expense.
As a result, there is very little margin for error and any significant cost overruns, delays or labour disputes can very quickly create issues with the financing which in turn can cause chaos with the reforms. Itâs no coincidence that Scotland, who the government has consulted with on these reforms, does not use leveraged finance to fund its water infrastructure.
We are, therefore, left with the same problems as existed last year - only multiplied. The complicated and untested governance structure, including the Te Mana o te Wai statements, together with a very aggressive leveraged financing package is unquestionably too risky a proposition for our national water infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Post by eri on Apr 20, 2023 9:14:39 GMT 12
tinkering with functioning systems until everything is broken
that's labour
they can't deliver
so they just tinker until the electorate finally relives them of the burden of governing
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Apr 21, 2023 10:04:37 GMT 12
I didn't realise Te Mana O Te Wai covered land as well! www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/jason-smith-the-overlooked-part-of-three-waters?postId=dcf3a9e7-bcc7-4364-bb90-e995d608f931&cid=db970c6d-6f12-48e2-a04d-5c512f666deeTHE OVERLOOKED PART OF THREE WATERS Since PM Hipkins's February announcement that there would be changes to the Government's controversial Three Waters programme, anticipation has grown about the reboot by the Hipkins-led Labour Government. Something clearly is deeply wrong with the programme and the legislation already in place. Despite the window-dressing announcement last week of how the government will amend aspects of the Three Waters laws it's already passed, the central Three Waters idea which Government has been advancing all along has been staunchly defended by barely being mentioned at all. Te Mana o Te Wai Statements, as prescribed in legislation at Part 4, Subpart 4 of the Water Services Entities Act (2022), are the very core, the citadel at the heart of the Three Waters programme. Yet there was little mention of Te Mana o Te Wai Statements in last weekâs announcement. The emphasis here is on the word "statements"; this concept is a slippery hook from which most politicians have slid when questioned by journalists, which is why most people aren't aware there's something very fishy in the waters here. Te Mana o Te Wai Statements are in a league of their own within the Three Waters reforms, far removed from the already-controversial co-governance arrangements or entity size and shape which have drawn the heat and the light and where much debate has been, and will continue to be. Te Mana o Te Wai Statements are legislated to cover every square centimetre of all the land, including under every home, road, farm or place of business as well as many kilometres out to sea. Theyâre not just about broken pipes but something much wider. Simple and powerful, it is already law that whatever these statements contain must be put into effect, no questions asked. The problem is only some parts of society are allowed to write them, though they affect us all. There is no co-governance in the simple truth that itâs only Maori who may write Te Mana o Te Wai Statements. There is nothing "co-" about this, it's a different type of constitutional arrangement from anything we've seen before. Itâs racially exclusive. As a member of the Government's Three Waters Working Group for Representation, Governance and Accountability in 2021-22 I know well what's intended by Te Mana o Te Wai Statements. Iâve been critical of the unacceptable direction of what the Government was going for with this. The ideas behind the TMOTW statements are something quite separate from the co-governance arrangements but still absolutely part of the story here. For more than a year Iâve written on this, been interviewed on this and even presented to the Parliamentary Select Committee for the Water Services Entities Bill, where I was surprised MPs were unaware of or confused about what was proposed for Te Mana o Te Wai statements. Even now, having had a chance to reconsider what theyâre doing with all aspects of Three Waters, Government is still following the idea of what iwi leaders call âending the tyranny of the majorityâ. It's not about a joined up New Zealand where everyone is leaning in to fix our water challenges, it's simply racially divisive. That Three Waters has become a hot political mess is no surprise. Wide-spread roadside signs reminding travellers to "Stop Three Waters" are part of the largest sign protest since "Stop The Tour" signs more than forty years ago. The Springbok tour of 1981 nearly brought the country to a form of civil war, and Three Waters issues are no less ominous. The justification for the Government building a hiding-in-plain-view-race-based policy around water and land use affecting us all has never been explained. Simple questions have been deftly avoided by the current Prime Minister and his predecessor and the former and current Ministers of Local Government. The fact most New Zealanders are not lawfully able to contribute to their local Te Mana o Te Wai Statement sets up the authors of those statements to fail and sets up everyone for civil unrest in the future. The opportunity to correct this has been missed in the most recent ministerial revision. The dark heart of Three Waters remains hidden in plain sight, defended at all costs in last weekâs policy rebranding. Beyond the things we already know, there's something sinister in the waters after all. |
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Apr 21, 2023 11:11:22 GMT 12
So much for the "most transparent" government NZ has ever had!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by dutyfree on Apr 21, 2023 21:13:50 GMT 12
Co governance is a sort of red herring. The problem is these Ti Mata Why? statement things. Any Maori organisation can put one out and whomever the governance mob are they have to abide by the statement. 'Statement' can also be read as 'Demand' So we have assets stolen from their owners, control of them given to unelected outfits that have no real responsibility but do have the ability to mortgage your house to borrow mega billions of bucks. Also the governance boards will be made up of people based on tribal seniority not experience so can you imagine the mess's that will come from this. Did I hear someone say Mangawhai Wastewater fuck ups all over again? Well, my view is that it is not a red herring, but is linked to the Te Mana o Te Wai Statements. If the question or objective is: Improve NZ water including waste etc, why is co-governance the answer? What special skills or insights does it bring? The answer is none. So the answer has to be nothing to do with water. Again of we start from the same objective, why are Te Mana o Te Wai statements the answer? What special skills or expertise will they bring? Again the answer is none. So again they are there for some other reason.
Then we have the latest, democracy is not really what the treaty means statements from the relevant minister and the previous followup "we own the water" from the Maori "king" (bloody cultural appropriation by Maori) and that other guy last weekend. So what does that reveal? Interest in safe drinking water and clean waste or simple economic value grab? I know which one I pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Apr 22, 2023 13:20:12 GMT 12
Co governance is a sort of red herring. The problem is these Ti Mata Why? statement things. Any Maori organisation can put one out and whomever the governance mob are they have to abide by the statement. 'Statement' can also be read as 'Demand' So we have assets stolen from their owners, control of them given to unelected outfits that have no real responsibility but do have the ability to mortgage your house to borrow mega billions of bucks. Also the governance boards will be made up of people based on tribal seniority not experience so can you imagine the mess's that will come from this. Did I hear someone say Mangawhai Wastewater fuck ups all over again? Well, my view is that it is not a red herring, but is linked to the Te Mana o Te Wai Statements. If the question or objective is: Improve NZ water including waste etc, why is co-governance the answer? What special skills or insights does it bring? The answer is none. So the answer has to be nothing to do with water. Again of we start from the same objective, why are Te Mana o Te Wai statements the answer? What special skills or expertise will they bring? Again the answer is none. So again they are there for some other reason.
Then we have the latest, democracy is not really what the treaty means statements from the relevant minister and the previous followup "we own the water" from the Maori "king" (bloody cultural appropriation by Maori) and that other guy last weekend. So what does that reveal? Interest in safe drinking water and clean waste or simple economic value grab? I know which one I pick.
Good points.
It's all about the coin. The talk Maori want to preserve their Tonaga, or whatever it is called, are best for the land is all just marketing money grabbing crap. Again we see last week the Maori horrified a big overseas company will fuck the Kaipara with Dome Valley landfill leach-ate sold their souls for sweet fuck all. It appears they value the harbour and surrounds less than a few million bucks and the promise of a few shitty jobs. Their Taniwha must be a real softcock to roll over for so little.
|
|
