The 2 real question 3 Waters must answer

23
862
Could this Cartoon be any more Wellington focus grouped?

Our water systems are a joke!

Farmers have stolen it and polluted it for so long they believe they have a right to.

Maori have been impoverished for so long they jump at anyone with a few flash bucks to give them access to water.

City Council’s have kicked the can so far down the track in terms of upgrading their water issues that we have run out of track.

So I endorse the State just moving in and taking the entire country’s water systems under its control because the mix of incompetence and corruption is intolerable for such an important resource.

- Sponsor Promotion -

The problem however is that the 3 Waters proposal can’t answer the most important question which is will it, once implemented, be able to stop water being taken by foreign companies and can it stop privatisation?

A challenge to a Chinese water bottling giant’s plans to produce and fill a billion bottles of water from a Whakatāne aquifer each year has made it to the country’s second-highest court, as a local iwi continues its quest to have the plans scrapped.

What is the use of water reform if it can’t guarantee in a dangerously warming planet where fresh water will become scarce that overseas interests can’t simply steal our water like they do now?

Once a country becomes dependent on us for fresh water, do you think they will allow us to stop them taking it?

I’m all fine for taking water assets and running them by the State, but are they protecting our water for us or foreign interests?

We need to halt all foreign taking of water in NZ. The planet is burning, we have the water, let’s keep it for us!

The suggested solutions to keeping National and ACT from privatising the water once Government takes it is that they will need a 75% super majority…

Working group finds Three Waters proposal needs significant changes

The Three Waters working group is recommending significant changes to the Government’s water reforms following strident opposition to the proposals.

…these are excellent proposals and I think ultimately strengthen the call for real change.

To date 3 Waters has been sold by critics as ‘stealing da water for Maaaaaaaaaaaaori’, when it’s nothing of the sort!

I like the need for ACT and National to have a super majority before they could attempt to privatise the water, but the simple truth is that ACT and National ARE SO RIGHT WING they just could never be trusted to not privatise the water.

Better that we never elect National and ACT to any position of power where. they could privatise water.

If Labour fight water reforms from a position of stopping foreign interests from taking our water and stopping privatisation, they will have a political winner for the 2023 election.

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media

23 COMMENTS

  1. Farmers have stolen it and polluted it

    In the wider valleys around where I live (EBoP), the harm being done to waterways, – to rivers, streams, gorges, ranges, wetlands and coastlands, is NOT from farms – not now anyway. Doc did a good job around here over the years, traipsing through the farms, ensuring all waterways were fenced off, replanting the edges of creeks and waterways with natives.

    There IS harm – and it is caused by forestry. Entire hillsides, having been effectively strip-felled, slide into the rivers, carrying all their waste – rubble, dead trees, silt, topsoil, – wrecking the rivers and surrounding land, causing land to flood massively, and washing tons of rubbish, including heaps of rotting logs, onto what were once beautiful beaches.

    Forestry is one major source of harm to our waterways. There are others.
    Closer to towns it is industrial waste, with all their heavy metal and other toxins, which are spewed into the rivers. And then there are the sewerage overflows – the faeces of a million people in the cities have to go somewhere I guess. Same for the hundreds of thousands of tourists (from whom we have a sweet brief reprieve), – who’s flushing run-off is often likely to end up in our once pristine lakes! – Ultimately turning them into sewerage ponds.

    • Great points, Kheala. It is great to see more holistic approaches and a more complete industry segment being cited in terms of various ways NZ can help preserve our fresh water and waterways.

  2. NZ Green Party is a joke. Nobody believes 3 waters is about the environment. Look at government actions so far. AKA Green Party Eugenie Sage signing off more water bottling to China, now they have decided not to support a nationwide petition to ban landfills near waterways.

    Apparently the group ‘Fight the Tip’ have been trying to stop a landfill from NZ Wastemanagement (Chinese owned) in an Auckland valley with waterway discharging into the Kaipara (2nd biggest harbour in the world and home to 99% of NZ snapper nursery’s) and filled with native species like endangered eels, sent out an email – From ‘Fight the Tip’

    I wonder who owns the Green Party now, as it is not really recognisable as an environmental party.

    Labour also have no environmental credentials and increasingly think that putting a layer of ‘management’ over the growing social and environmental problems will work, inspite of doing this and making everything worse from housing, to education to now water.

    What government need to do is say ‘ no landfill near waterways’ by law. Then we will get better water quality!

    Clearly government can’t do that.

    Disgusting.

    Full email – Re posted.

    Kia Ora everyone

    The Environment Select Committee chaired by Hon Eugenie Sage has
    decided not to support our nationwide petition to ban landfills near
    waterways. In the final report she states “We agree with the ministry
    and the council that a total ban on landfills near waterways would
    make the siting of landfills challenging.”

    This is incredibly disappointing and astounding considering the
    importance being placed on protecting New Zealand’s important water
    resources.

    Only two days prior I had received an email from Eugenie Sage headed
    “Oceans urgently need our help” and included the statement “Green MPs
    will be pushing for the Government to do much more to protect our
    precious oceans and marine life”. Then to receive this decision about
    our petition which had the goal to do just that, is total hypocrisy.

    I had raised another example of inconsistent water protection to the
    committee during our presentation. I referred to council experts at
    the consent hearings for the Dome Valley Landfill stating it poses
    little threat to the Kaipara harbour because it is 35km away. Sage
    states “In contrast, Ms Carmichael pointed out, farmers are required
    to protect all waterways, regardless of their distance from the sea.”

    How can the committee support these inconsistencies by deciding “We do
    not agree that landfills should be required to be built away from any
    form of waterway, but acknowledge the importance of protecting
    waterways from contamination.” That statement in itself is
    contradictory because even the best landfill technology and mitigation
    strategies cannot guarantee 100% protection.

    Even though central government says they are committed to reducing
    waste, it seems that being able to site new landfills around New
    Zealand is still more important than protecting our water.

    The committee refers to New Zealand’s waste minimisation efforts,
    stating “We were also heartened to hear about work in the ministry’s
    Waste and Resource Efficiency Programme” and “that Auckland Council
    wishes to have zero waste by 2040. We encourage other councils to also
    progress towards the goal of zero waste.”

    However, to decline this petition to ban landfills near waterways
    because it would make siting new landfills difficult, shows that in
    reality these goals are not going to be achieved. Catch phrases such
    as ‘Zero waste by 2040’ just become marketing tools to convince the
    public that our government and councils can help us achieve this. If
    that goal was achievable surely our current landfills have the
    capacity to see us through?

    A full copy of the report can be viewed via the following link
    https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/SCR_120001/752f49c9bd1e14e00439ce5e1bf75864e08d2d9f

    We hope the Environment Court will better understand the importance of
    waste minimisation and water protection when we appeal the Dome Valley
    landfill project later this year.

    • What government need to do is say ‘ no landfill near waterways’ by law.

      Absolutely!
      Why is that so difficult for them?

    • Remember Eugene Sage is only 1 vote on the environment committee.
      Labour have the majority members so would have out voted her.
      Just because she is the chairperson doesn’t mean the Green party supports it.

    • Remember Eugene Sage is only 1 vote on the environment committee.
      Labour have the majority members so would have out voted her.
      Just because she is the chairperson doesn’t mean the Green party supports it.

      • She signed off the additional water for Chinese bottling plants last time. Not sure we can keep blaming everyone else for Green Party members ticking environmental rape every time.

  3. A very limited number of councils have poor water infrastructure such as that hotbed of loony leftists in Wellington who spend their money on cycle ways cyclists hate and don’t use (IslandBay) and propping up white elephants like the town hall and library rather than doing what should be their primary focus, ie managing the boring stuff like infrastructure.

    3 waters is a blatant assets grab, barely hidden under the fig leaf of better water. The vast majority of water supplied in NZ is pristine. Mahuta’s scheme is to strip the assets away from all New Zealanders and pass it over to a small cabal of the Māori elite so that they can enrich themselves.

    No one has yet been able to offer a compelling reason why the management structure needs to be the way it is.

    More than this, head out into heartland NZ and you’ll see hundreds of ‘Say no to 3 Waters’ banners, posters, murals, you name it across the country (I’ve just done a loop from Auckland to Queenstown, down West and up East). It’s a massive vote loser and will be gassed or it will ignite factional infighting and ensure the implosion of Labour ahead of the 23 election

  4. Let’s call it for what it is:

    A pooling of assets outside of the government’s books that they can leverage to increase debts with some token woke “Maorification” attached to it. Start, middle, end. The balance is political wind.

    And like all things like this the “spend” will be on low quality garbage and lots and lots of cultural consultants.

    • Frank
      Wow, you’ve just reduced a 3875 page proposal down to a short text message. Brilliant. BTW I am doing quick course in ‘cultural consultation’ since I can’t seem to win lotto. My million dollar payday is waiting.

  5. the mix of incompetence and corruption is intolerable

    Where in the proposed new system are there any guarantees that there will not be either a continuation of incompetence and corruption, or an increase in the reach of such incompetence and corruption, or … that there will be any improvement whatsoever? Other than for a chosen few?

    And for those regions which are presently doing okay, what guarantees are there that the corruption and incompetence won’t now affect them as well?

    What is to stop those with vested interests ensuring that their particular area or venture has access to water (taken from elsewhere), to the exclusion of others, or that their polluting “outflows” are politely ignored?

    Will anyone be held to account, wherever negligence and harm eventuate from decisions those few have made?

  6. Those of us who are against the 3 Waters reform have a number of key issues we support. We support increasing the standard for water for all. We accept co-governance with Mana Whenua over water. The basic issue which we disagree with is that these reforms have been proposed by forces which inflicted neo-liberal economics on this country. The governance structures were designed by Standard and Poors. The system was designed by InfrastructureNZ and WaterNZ in the interests of their commercial members. Treasury have had a large role in the design.
    To date Local Government has protected the ownership of the water remaining in public ownership. We worked hard to ensure that the Local Government Act 2002 protected water ownership. To institute these proposed reforms this existing legislative protection will have to be removed. I honestly believe that Labour has no intention of ever privatizing water. However, by removing the current protection they will create the precedent for future governments to later on feel vindicated in promoting “competition” between water authorities (which will be easy as there will be only 4 authorities) and sooner or later we will have multi-national corporations owning our water. Labour are creating the precedent for meddling with the protection of water
    Martyn the proposed 3 Water structures are undemocratic and are wrong. The business structures will put the companies into the hands of a business elite, acceptable to the IOD.
    They are the greatest theft from rightful owners possibly since colonisation. In Christchurch the Council assets which are valued at $5.9b net would be paid for by a $122m bank payment. That’s theft on a grand scale.
    The government, through Treasury, has appointed an “implementation committee” It has 6 members. 4 are from the private sector. One is from local government. This is a business takeover of an essential resource.
    It would be possible to have a series of regional structures which would work. With Mana Whenua. If you want to look at a model of how to plan water with Mana Whenua look at the Westland District Council. They have 2 Runanga. The Runanga chairs sit at the Council table. They plan their water services together, at the Council table. This effective system which has been operating for 4 years would be removed under the government’s proposals.
    What is needed is for everybody to sit back. Breathe through their noses. Review local government properly, especially how it is funded, and then attempt to find regional solutions which will work.

    • This co-governance thing, it’s baloney. The treaty has three articles, the Queen is it’s at the top of the heap, property rights and we are all equal.

      Co-governance, partnership, etc is just made up clap trap that has been hijacked by a minority of the elite who happen to have a smidgen of ‘special’ dna to enrich themselves.

      The end result of continuing to walk down this path is a racially segregated society where some are deemed to be more worthy than others purely because of who their great granny was. It undermines everything that makes democracies successful and it’s got to stop.

      Nowhere in the world has this ever worked – humans are hardwired to be tribal so by forcing a clear split between people on a basis of race and nothing else will be catastrophic.

      What I cannot understand is why some appear to accept that simply because one person might lay claim to being Māori despite the majority of their heritage being from god knows where has a greater connection or whatever than someone who’s missing that special dna.

      Play that out further, my kids are 6th generation New Zealanders. They and the previous generations all loved this country deeply and I cannot accept that any other person has a greater sense of connection to it regardless of who their granny may or may not have been.

      We’re forgetting He Waka Eke Noa

      • Yep. Well said. But probably you will be dismissed by woke, as racist and anti Maori.

        Also are iwi representing Maori interest very well?

        Maori poverty seems to be in free fall since the treaty settlements, instead of creating greater happiness and prosperity for Maori.

        Iwi getting Russian and Asian slavers to do their fishing quotas really helping Maori jobs for example? Unfortunately doesn’t matter what colour and race you are, lazy people act the same way.

        $50 p/k for NZ snapper in shops. How many takers?

        Groups taking 1000’s of fish which are not protected, and probably ending up infish and chip shops tax free. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/outrage-after-fishermen-filmed-thousands-fish-bins

        Similar massacre is already happening with water and pollution.

        This is an example of what we have to look forward to with 3 waters. The worst of the worst.

        Instead of quickly putting in emergency laws to stop overfishing and pollution of water, the government helps the exploiters and polluters or does nothing for those being outside of the rules and destroying the environment, in plain sight of the community.

    • sooner or later we will have multi-national corporations owning our water.

      Think sooner rather than later.

  7. Give over Martyn. 3 Waters is Dog Tucker!
    It’s an asset grab .
    It undermines representative democracy and rewards the power elite.
    It a useful illustration for those not allergic to thinking of what a greedy pack of deluded , destructive neo liberal scumbags Labour truly are.
    I do wish the Labour Party would go away and die very soon.

    • Shona et al
      Besides the asset grab thing, say it was necessary to be managed centrally…
      That’s where I am not getting Mahuta’s concept? If it’s that vital a resource, if it is truly “New Zealand’s” water, first and foremost it must be managed by a team of New Zealanders with the best qualifications. Instead her proposal is for management by quota. Qualifications don’t even come into the discussion, but it’s all about race again. Being Maori is not a qualification. Being European is not a qualification. Being Asian is not a qualification. BTW, Labour will go away in 18 odd months. Think of it like that and have a nice GnT.

    • That is exactly how we felt about John who promised us all a brighter future and he did deliver for Australia and got an award for it for crapping on his own country and people.

  8. “To date 3 Waters has been sold by critics as ‘stealing da water for Maaaaaaaaaaaaori’, when it’s nothing of the sort!”
    Actually it was triggered by Ngai Tahu (currently worth around 1.7 billion+) wanting to do just that. Given this is being supported by TRONT’s commercial arm I suspect that ‘cleaner water for all’ was not what Ngai Tahu is hoping comes out of this… As the largest player in dairy in the SI NT could do a great deal to clean up our rivers etc if they chose to. Sadly they place profits over the environment.
    Ngai Tahu could charge tens of millions each year as part of the metering system – effectively privatising water and water quality wise we may well be no better off. Metering for water would worsen inequality and the only people to gain would be the Maori elite…Sad really.

Comments are closed.