The Prime Minister’s performance on Q+A this morning (Sunday 31 July) must have had her comms people on the edge of their seats, nails in teeth, waiting for the worst. What makes her gaffes so concerning is that she didn’t know she made them. Unfortunately, neither did her interviewer.
Jack asked about co-governance of the 3 Waters Entities via the Regional Representation Group (RRG). He asked whether, if democracy is ‘one person one vote’, the governance structure of the RRG is democratic, and do Pakeha (and other New Zealanders) have the same representation as Maori?
The question was both simple and complex, with a potentially divisive answer. The simple answer should have been ‘no’; whether that matters or not is another question. But, as most politicians will do when faced with having to give an answer that will make the 6 o’clock news (and not in a good way), she deflected…
It was a response that should have opened up a can of worms for the PM because it calls into question her understanding of what is probably the most impactful and nation-defining Bill this government will ever consider.
She essentially said that the governance arrangement wasn’t as significant as Jack was suggesting because (and here’s the gaffe) the power still sits with the owners, with the Councils. To be exact she said:
- “The ownership rights continue to sit with local government and those local councils”
- “The ownership sits with local people”
- “For most people power sits with ownership and ownership sits with local government”
At this point, Mayors and councillors and other informed citizens across the country were spraying their morning cuppas across their living rooms.
By now, the PM should have read both the Bill and key submissions from local government. She should know that existing ownership rights will not (as she said) “continue to sit with local government”. At this point the Bill confers only one power to council ‘shares’ – that is the limited potential to avert complete privatisation, via a vote. Councils’ ability to give any other direction is removed by the Bill. And there are no ownership responsibilities at all – they can’t even choose to bail out the Entities to protect their assets.
As for the ownership sitting with local people, the Bill provides no democratic link between local people or local councils and the RRG.
There will be vigorous agreement that ownership should come with power. But that’s the point – in this case, it doesn’t. And the PM should be acknowledging that.
She then comforted the nation by assuring us that the RRG will set the Statement of Intent (SOI). Wrong again – the unelected Entity Boards will write the SOIs and the Bill gives the RRGs no power to change them.
Jack missed both key errors and kept pressing for an answer to his original question, missing a moment of journalistic triumph.
At best, this shows that the PM does not understand the fundamentals, let alone the details, of the draft legislation. At worst, we are being deliberately misled. I prefer the former because I see it in local government too: governance being overwhelmed with all the change and all the information that comes with it, and a consequential reliance on carefully managed briefings. It’s a scenario that undermines our democracy, decision by decision and that is being enabled by this Government’s huge and patronising centralisation agenda.
This 3 Waters governance model originated under a National Government. Infrastructure NZ leapt into action after the Havelock North contamination event – they organised a delegation to Scotland and essentially ‘sold’ aggregation to the DIA and Treasury. The missing ingredient at that point was co-governance, which was then handed to the Labour Government in the same way you might give a lollipop to child if you have important work you need to do and you don’t want them to get in the way. A nice, sweet, pacifying distraction.
It’s now time for the pollies to come down off the sugar rush and do the hard work before it’s too late. Actually read the Bill, understand the Bill, consider submissions, and then front the public with the unembellished truth: there is no council ownership; there is no meaningful governance (for Maori or anyone else); there are loopholes allowing asset sales, provisions enabling 35-year ‘joint arrangements’ with foreign corporates; and significant risk of privatisation.
This is industry-driven reform that will benefit industry. It’s an indictment of governance and our media that, instead of talking about that, we are still broadcasting misleading statements and publicly squabbling about co-governance.
Niki Gladding is a Queenstown Lakes District councillor, sitting on QLDC’s Infrastructure Committee and Climate Reference Group. Niki co-founded Aotearoa Water Action in 2018 and has spent the last five years challenging consents granted to 2 foreign water-bottlers. She supports mana whenua partnering with councils to govern three waters assets.”
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth
Jacinda lies
I can’t bring myself to listen to the soft serve or the waffle.
The problem is, it is the neoliberals leading the blind neoliberal followers who don’t have a clue what they are proposing.
VERY concerning that the PM doesn’t even understand what she sells, proposes, implements and supports.
Not just his the unemployment insurance, the hate speech, 3 waters, the polytechs.
Consultants and insiders are just printing themselves more money with these unworkable, bankrupting, undemocratic management schemes.
They need to actually stop all the new disasters and try to fix the current disasters in Kainga Ora, drugs, low wages, poverty immigration, Oranga Tamariki, transport, before destroying more agencies and the people of NZ’s lives, with more (little understanding of) bad laws.
Everything Labour did has gone wrong since the 1980’s, from making student pay for tertiary fees, to having one maternity advisor only, tomorrows schools. to selling off state house land with Kiwibuild, (before buying more housing back at massive prices).
Labour are best when they don’t have any new brain fart ideas, that decades later are still destroying lives. They still don’t realise they implant the policies that the Natz then get into power on, and take a lot further by privatising.
I wonder how many of us think we currently ‘own’ and therefore have ‘power’ over our water assets? Continued ability for free foreign water extraction proves we do not have any control over it.
Auckland’s water has been a debacle since back in to 80’s at least; the answer – drink more of the Waikato’s effluent.
It’s blatantly obvious.
Start saving for a glass of water… Ain’t nothing you can do about it.
Water is free. Just allow people to start collecting it!
Water should be first used for the community and then the country it is in – and not wasted with individual profiteering.
Water bottles themselves are very polluting for the environment not to mention selling water for virtually nothing to companies, while those who live in NZ pay a fortune for CEO’s and endless self serving bureaucracy on $680k per year like Water Care in Auckland.
3 Waters is just gearing NZ water up for privatisation while adding more cost to the structure with another layer of management on top of the endless lower managers and structures already in place. 3 Waters is already costing millions in consultants and PR – raising the cost of water in NZ.
It should be in the building code that everyone has to collect drinking water off their roof and collect grey water for gardening. Easy fix to help Maori and everyone else get free water.
Non permeable surface ratios are a joke as the maximum areas are generally exceeded by developers. There are big environmental costs of diesel and dog pooh in the wastewater and massive mansions being built.
There are loads of simple problems with water that could easily and cheaply be solved just by simple practices. But that does not feed the neoliberal machine it just helps stop pollution and water insecurity for all in NZ.
If they implement this, then all the money the government saves from not implementing the disastrous proposal of 3 Waters and the water subsidies they will need to start making for the masses to afford water, they can spend on helping our health, housing and education system!
So often I have seen TV interviewers in NZ go in with a prepared set of questions. They run through the questions but don’t have the wit to actually listen to the answers or have the wit to see an opportunity to prise open the interviewee.
Many of them dont have the skills to think on their feet which is why I like Simon Bridge the more I see him because he pretty much always catches the lies and keeps pushing. But clearly this generation’s journos have been taught to apply a bit of performance art to the govt’s scripted agenda.
I dont watch the MSM generally but cant help wondering why they dont seem to have mentioned the nearly 100K submissions made on 3 Waters?
Ultra woke interviewing phoney woke. Lies are ignored to suit their woke narrative.
why the big hurry about things? they are in such a hurry to make new zealand smoke free.. do climate things where nz prolly couldn’t even help by 1percent in the world. its like the world is going to end . they need to slow down. rethink things carefully. just jumping in the deep end.. changing things and realising they cant continue. how bout fix thins that need fixed b4 fixing that .. that does not need fixed
She then comforted the nation by assuring us that the RRG will set the Statement of Intent (SOI). Wrong again – the unelected Entity Boards will write the SOIs and the Bill gives the RRGs no power to change them.
Really?
From the bill:
The Bill requires the board to prepare and adopt
-a statement of intent
—in which the strategic elements must be approved by the entity’s regional representative group; and
—setting out the forecast service performance and budget of the entity:
Now try to find a clause that allows the RRG to amend the SOI. There isn’t one.
I think the issue is that the bill is full of loopholes that basically boils down to maintainance and cost cutting exercises to fit with in local council voter expectations over rates.
Creating twenty first century water infrastructure to last throughout climate change just isn’t possible when the water system is already well past capacity. We just dump human shit straight into the Hauraki harbour.
Point is that the real cost which for political purposes can not be factored into voter expectations.
There is no process for amendment of the SOI. There’s provision for some discussion if the RRG don’t like the SOI but the draft legislation prevents the RRG from directing the Board. So, no teeth.
I don’t think we need insider information or a watch dog with teeth to govern water. The public will tell us everything we need to know.
[Not sure why previous responses have not appeared.]
The RRG decides who is on the board. They have the authority to assign and dismiss board members. The RRG is also responsible for reviewing the entity’s performance.
While the board is responsible for the annual SOI, a draft needs to be submitted to the RRG before it is finalised. The RRG needs to approve the strategic elements and is able to do so without agreement with the board.
Once finalised, amendments to the SOI can be made by the board, but notice needs to be submitted to the RRG.
Basically, the RRG is involved before a SOI is finalised, needs to approve the strategic elements with or without the board’s consent, has to be notified of proposed changes the board wishes to make once the SOI is finalised, while retaining the ability to dismiss board members.
The entire Q&A Interview was appalling lucky for the government the election is still a year away.
Niki, great article. You say Co-Governance was “handed to the Labour Government,” – do you mean by National who used it with the management of some natural resources? Labour has elevated it to a central policy item, proposing to co-govern both Health and Water. The Co-Governance in Three Waters stands out to me as an undemocratic outrage, yet you say there is no governance. The Water Service Entities have to react to Te Mana o te Wai statements, do you not think that is governance?
“there is no meaningful governance (for Maori or anyone else)”
I think you’re wrong on this, Niki. The right for iwi and hapu to write Te Mana o Te Wai statements whenever they like, that the Water Services Entities are effectively obliged to follow, give them huge power.
Non-Maori have been excluded from doing the same (even though council reps on the working group last year asked explicitly for that right to be given to them too. They were turned down).
Some will say that TMoTW statements are restricted to environmental concerns but the DIA has made it clear: “Te Mana o Te Wai [statements] will enable development of mauri frameworks, application of mātauranga Māori measurement or any other expression that iwi decide is relevant to them.”
Once matauranga Maori is on the table, anything goes.
The most impactful and nation-defining things any government will ever consider is what is on the 6 o’clock news and next morning radio.
Comments are closed.