THE ORIGINAL ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN for Nanaia Mahuta’s “Three Waters” project was surprisingly honest. Not in terms of the information it communicated to the public, which was, at best, misleading; and, at worst, shamefully propagandistic. In terms of what they wanted the public to believe, however, the promoters of Three Waters could not have been more transparent. New Zealand’s rivers and streams were awash with poo. Councils had failed their electors. Fixing up the water would be eye-wateringly expensive. Radical remedies were the only answer.
None of these frightening propositions were true.
New Zealand’s rivers and streams had come under increased pressure as the country’s dairy herd expanded rapidly in the first two decades of the Twenty-First Century. The solution to this problem, however, lay not with a radical restructuring of New Zealand’s drinking, waste and stormwater infrastructure, but in improving the livestock management of the nation’s diary-farmers. As is so often the case, New Zealand’s farmers rose to this challenge. Access to waterways was fenced-off and riparian planting helped to filter farm run-off.
Not that this has prevented the Government’s supporters from characterising New Zealand farms as open sewers. Seemingly, ten million cows are only able to relieve themselves in bodies of running water. What actually happens, of course, is that cows, like most mammals, defecate on what lies immediately beneath their rear ends. For the vast majority of this country’s 4.9 million cows (the size of the New Zealand dairy herd has never exceeded 6 million and is steadily decreasing) what lies beneath their haunches are good, old-fashioned, New Zealand paddocks, which actually benefit from the breaking down of cow poo into top-soil. Dangerous nitrate run-off is as much an artificial fertiliser problem as it is a cow pee problem.
None of these facts mattered. New Zealanders were supposed to believe that every time they quenched their thirst with a glass of water they were swallowing shit. Not only that, but the task of fixing their drinking water was now beyond the financial resources of their local council. Worse still, many local authorities’ century-old-plus sewage and stormwater infrastructure was failing and in urgent need of repairs and/or replacements they could not afford.
This “the country can’t afford it” catch-cry was critical to the shape of the Three Waters project. New Zealand’s neoliberal state ideology is violently allergic to the public-funding and ownership of critical infrastructure. Treasury’s preference is to have local government bear the costs of renewal – either by raising rates, or borrowing. Unfortunately, local government’s credit is fast running out.
Rather than have the New Zealand state stand in the market for the finance required to upgrade New Zealand’s drinking, waste and stormwater systems – which it could borrow at the most favourable interest rates – successive governments have been advised to create a new stand-alone entity, or entities, and have it/them borrow the needed money. To reassure the lenders that their returns are secure, those same advisers have made it crystal clear that said entities must be absolutely impervious to all forms of democratic interference. While it might be politically wise to reassure voters that their councils still “owned” their three waters infrastructure, under no circumstances could local authorities be permitted to control it.
It was precisely this separation of ownership from control (control being central to the whole concept of ownership) that caused the Auditor-General to present such a strong critique of the Three Waters project – as currently conceived.
But, ownership and control are not only concepts crucial to the value and utility of tangible assets – private as well as public – they are also crucial to the Māori concept of tino rangatiratanga – Māori sovereignty. It is at the intersection of these two key concepts that the deepest and most difficult problems of Three Waters arise.
Iwi authorities have seized upon the credit-rating agencies’ insistence that the proposed Three Waters entities be sealed-off from democratic interference, to fashion a governance structure favourable to themselves, from which the Pakeha majority is excluded, and which enables Iwi to release revenue streams that the (for once powerless) Pakeha state cannot dam. A bold plan, but one which Iwi could not reasonably have expected their Pakeha compatriots to simply wave on through.
Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any group other than the present collection of political actors who would have taken such risks to see the Three Waters project implemented. Labour has the largest Māori caucus in its history, ably co-led by Nanaia Mahuta and Willie Jackson. Labour itself commands an absolute majority in the House of Representatives and, like their Green ally, its leaders are ideologically committed to the judicially contrived and academically elaborated concepts of “partnership” and “co-governance”. Without the staunchness of the Māori caucus, and the “wokeness” of Labour and Green MPs, Three Waters would never have got off the ground.
There are those on the Left who argue that this fortuitous aggregation of Māori activists and allies is the direct result of Helen Clark’s legislative rejection of the Court of Appeal’s Foreshore & Seabed judgement back in 2004. The three dominant players in the Sixth Labour Government: Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins; are depicted as shocked and unwilling accomplices in the Clark Government’s unconscionable theft of the Foreshore & Seabed. Eighteen years later, at the summit of the Pakeha state, these three are determined to have no repeat of the racist travesty they were forced to live through in 2004. This time, Labour will not let the Māori lose.
Stirring stuff! But if the so-called “Sharma Drama” has taught us anything, it is that the political culture of the post-Rogernomics Labour Party simply does not produce politicians of such mettlesome quality. For those who were following politics closely back in 2004, Tariana Turia’s resignation from the Labour Party appeared to inspire the same cold fury as Gaurav Sharma’s “treachery”. Loyalty trumps all other considerations in Labour: has done since the party split apart with such destructive acrimony in 1989. Had Ardern, Robertson and Hipkins felt the shame of 2004 as keenly as some on the Left suggest, they would have resigned alongside Turia and, like the fast disintegrating Alliance, done all they could to help her get the Māori Party up and running.
Equally untrue is the proposition that Labour’s inadvertent creation of the Māori Party kept it out of office for nine years. At no time did Māori MPs constitute the difference between a National and a Labour government. Between 2008 and 2014 Labour’s parliamentary numbers were so low that had all the Māori Party MPs defected to the Opposition, the National Government could have continued to govern with the support of Act.
The durability of the Three Waters Project is not the product of Labour heroism, but of 18 years of Crown-Iwi collaboration and compromise. Eighteen years of hard academic yakka in the fields of law, medicine, sociology, anthropology and history. Eighteen years of positive discrimination in the public service, the news media and the arts.
In sum, Three Waters is the culmination of a grand intellectual pincer movement. On the one hand, an immeasurably stronger alliance of Iwi-controlled institutions; on the other, a state no longer capable of dismissing Māori leaders as “haters and wreckers” – or saying “No.” Squeezed between these two, the Pakeha nation.
That was the core message embedded in the initial Three Waters advertising campaign. Māori New Zealand was telling Pakeha New Zealand:
“You can’t stop this.”
3 waters is not about water quality, its about water politics — who gets water, and why…
Chris Trotter sums up the aspirations of iwi well. However, he underplays the financial reason for arms-length control. Here’s how Bernard Hickey describes that:
“The government should have been up front about its strategy of trying to engineer a tax increase and higher debt onto the nation’s public water infrastructure from the start. Now the reform is mired, unfortunately, in a backlash over co-governance, which is not the real reason for the reforms….
“Three Waters was a clever way for central government to essentially circumvent the bi-partisan ’30/30′ consensus that has dominated our political and economic settings for thirty years. That is:
taxes won’t be raised or new taxes introduced in a way that means government revenues are more than 30% of GDP; and central and local government won’t raise long term net debt levels beyond 30% of GDP.
“That 30/30 consensus meant government and councils under-invested in water, transport, health, education and other infrastructure to the tune of about $100b over the last 30 years, and will need to invest another $100b over the next 30 years just to keep up with forecast population growth. That $200b of infrastructure spending over the next 30 years would require breaking one or both of those 30/30 rules. The alternative is much heavier “demand management” tools such as congestion charges, water charges and other forms of user pays that effectively become tax increases.”
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/09-08-2022/bernard-hickey-the-fundamental-problem-with-three-waters
Agree with most of your post.
Labour Government being upfront is a contradiction in terms.
Secret agenda is the Labour Government’s flavour.
Nice story Chris and follow on John.
And ratepayers will foot the bill. Broad based tax. Meaning those on low incomes will finally see some relief ……… not so much!
I going to need one extra large chocolate milk shake, extra shot of chocolate sauce, whiped cream on top, chunks of Whittakers White Chocolate on top and a cherry. Only thing I want to hear out of you from now on is “yes sir, right away sir.”
dream on dickhead ! 1
Shona: a member of this household has said: ” F**** off, sir”
About sums it up, really.
Least you didn’t essay us, D+D.
3 waters is not about water quality, its about water politics — who gets water, and why…
Let the local/global ethno-nationalistic water, energy & resource wars begin in earnest. The beginning of the end is nigh, saith those with eyes to see & ears to hear.
Some unadulterated kiwi ‘truth’ from an old dog called Winston;
https://www.nzfirst.nz/winston-peters-democracy-speech?utm_campaign=wp_unify_speech&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nzfirst
Meltdowner Winston an old dog still uses his dog-whistle to call in his flock.m If you believe everything this mutt says then you’re are part of the problem. This old dog is a neoliberal shill!!
if that happens melt NZ will be at the top of every oligarchs shopping list..not that we aren’t already mind.
Great piece by the old dog.
Should be compulsory reading for all Labour Government supporters and members.
“In sum, Three Waters is the culmination of a grand intellectual pincer movement.”
I wouldn’t say intellectual exactly. More ‘faux academic’ endeavour based on half truths and in some cases outright lies.
At least it’s brought the issue to a head. The plotters have at long last played their cards. So now we just vote in a government that will write good constitutional law and slam the door on this malfeasance forever.
Fabulous Andrew.
Bob the first venerating another commentators views is a ‘Fakebook’ mentality try putting your own views instead of riding on someone else’s BS
Thanks for the advice Stephen but when I read sensible comments I feel compelled to thank the author.
I’ve venerated your comments more than once.
If you think that’s not allowed I will desist.
Yes, Stephen.
Robert the 1st reminds me of Uriah Heep in Dickens’ David Copperfield:
Uriah Heep is a fictional character created by Charles Dickens in his 1850 novel David Copperfield. Heep is the primary antagonist during the second part of the novel. His character is notable for his cloying humility, unctuousness, obsequiousness, and insincerity, making frequent references to his own “‘umbleness”.
Yes one of my favourites Dickens,David Copperfield.
Thanks Immigrant.
Now as an aside by calling yourself Immigrant does not mean you are well described in the last paragraph in your piece?
Twisted sister
The government’s 3 waters message may be; “you can’t stop this” Pakeha NZ.
But the counterpoint is “why not”. There’s an election next year and the Labour Party along with its Maori caucus can be voted out. If this happens, a new centre right government is bound to overturn any decisions relating to 3 waters and He Puapua made by the current government.
Actually I think this could be the defining issue of the next years election campaign. And I think that the main centre right parties (National and Act) will ramp up their opposition to 3 Waters, co govenance and especially He Puapua as the campaign itself ramps us.
There is a general uneasiness in NZ on these matters, which is mainly understated I think, but lies just beneath the surface. It would take much to stir it into action.
funny how they can push this through but not a CGT juzzz sayin…..
gagarin,
An excellent point because one would think 3 Waters a bigger vote loser than CGT.
Cant push a CGT through because stupid Ardern ruled it out when she didnt need to. Facing a landslide victory, she cut herself and the country off at the knees. And didnt mind doing so because her focus was on other kinds of ‘transformational’ change.
Yes the secret transformational agenda.
and a pollie has never said one thing and done another she has the majority and could act tomorrow morning IF SHE WANTED TO
Fact check for you Chris: The farm fencing in the Dairy and Clean Streams Accord did not lead to overall improved water quality. In fact, designed to avoid governmental regulation, it put power to address dairy effluent and nutrient run-off into the hands of the industry. No region ever achieved full compliance, water quality did not improve, and in some areas effluent and nutrient run-off got worse. Rivers got dirtier under the Clean Streams Accord. These days 95% of NZ’s waterways that run through pastoral land, are contaminated on at least one indicator.
And on dairy cow numbers, it is not true that the dairy herd has never exceeded six million: Stats NZ says ‘Between 1990 and 2019: dairy cattle numbers increased by 82 percent nationally from 3.4 million to 6.3 million. Canterbury dairy cattle increased tenfold (973 percent) from 113,000 to 1.2 million
Southland dairy cattle increased sixteen-fold (1,584 percent) from 38,000 to 636,000. At ‘peak cow’ there were almost 6.5million dairy cows.
What’s 500,000 cows between friends!
But, I stand corrected, Christine. Thank you for the fact-check.
Although (there’s always an although) I do detect a wee bit of the perfect being the enemy of the good in your critique of the Clean Streams Accord. Did the cockies achieve everything they set out to achieve? No. Did they give it a damn good try? Yes.
500,00 cow between friends is a load of shit.
Maori rights to water is enshrined in Article 2 of the TOW the founding document of New Zealand society today. Here what Article 2 says:
Article 2
Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.
These promises haven’t been upheld in its entirety since 1840 and successive govt haven’t addressed it either and have kicked the can down the road continuously until this Maori majority in parliament fruition at least on the surface is acknowledging this historic transgression which is a contributor to Maori inequality across the board that is reflected today.
The NZ Pakeha especially the farmers have had a free-ride on the back of these transgressions for ova a century excluding Maori participation to co-govern in securing a better standards of life for it’s people. Also what’s missing from these competing narratives is Maori personal relationship to water in Aotearoa. Most Pakeha & Maori don’t know how Maori whakapapa (genealogy) composite from. When Maori site their Whakapapa (genealogy) their mountain of their rohe (region) and the waters that flow from them are included as part of their whanau (family) that the deeper relationship that excluded from these conversations.
I support 3 waters possibly for ideological reasons which has a nationalistic characteristic to what I believe is the NZ story that been in the dark for 182 years.
You’re not serious Stephen?
Satire surely?
Jeez I wish so, but if that’s your answer to how Maori view our country then boy you’re in for a rude awakening.
Ok thanks for the warning.
Theft of council resources paid for by ratepayers cannot be justified as a treaty settlement
All the infrastructure was created after 1840 by local ratepayers not the crown
It is private property which is not available for treaty settlements
Tribal+Scot Historic illiteracy is part of your problem so I’ll leave a link for you to ponder over. So how do you think settlers (your ancestors) got here to make these laws? Did they just exist since eternity? Was it a bolt of lightning from god and Pakeha and it’s parliament appear with its laws?? Silly nilly it was the fucken Treaty of Waitangi that brought Pakeha to our shores not some divine intervention from god.
http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/
Tribal+Scot The Pakeha settlers after 1840 petition the crown to take Maoriland the relationship between them cannot be separated they’re both complicit in alienating Maori from participating in their affairs on their own land. And you have the cheek to talk about stealing!!
And what about us Maori rates payers do we count tribal plus Scot and the rivers controlled by council who owns them is it the councils cause our awa is fill of algae bloom and our swimming holes are now gone.
have you noticed there are less eels as well?
All I can say is who uses most of our water and who truly is the privileged ones in our country. We should do an audit and see and make the results public knowledge.
All I can say is who uses most of our water and who truly is the privileged ones in our country. We should do an audit and see and make the results public knowledge.
Primary industry would be the largest user by far I venture.
Primary industry than makes up nearly 80% of our overseas receipts.
So the water is put to good use.
No export income no New Zealand definitely no improvement to the poverty issues housing and hungry children.
Satire I assume?
No Stephen just reality.
Bob we pay market value for our goods here in NZ, international prices for our butter , meat and other goods produced here that is how the market works. We do not get a discount cause the producers are NZ based. And are you saying because primary industries generate GDP they can take as much water as they like cause realistically this is not fair. You need to stop making excuses cause your argument is lame.
Never said that the water take needs to be carefully monitored by the appropriate authorities.
The only solution to not paying market prices is subsidisation by Government which is of course the taxpayer.
Seem to recall there was a subsidy on dairy products at one time.
This funny, cause Maori then need to also tell Maori that they can’t stop this. Or are they also told to shut up and start sucking by the same people that want to tell New Zealanders/Kiwis/Aotearoans to do the same?
Of course RB you are correct.
The “present collection of political actors” says it all for me.
Excellent Chris!
It sounds as if Roger Douglas and Dick Prebble and the cabal, Trotter, Myers and Gibbs are still running the Labour party and their neoliberal policy(s) of the 1980s!
I am not against having appropriate co-governance over water with Maori.
I am not against centralisation of water.
I am against politicisation, denigration of democracy and economic and practical waste driven by ideologues who dont have the real life experience and the economic wherewithal to do the job probably. I am against lies, propaganda and manipulation.
If the Ardern Govt had told the truth we would not have at least 50% of Maori convinced they must have self determination because Colonialism is the author of all their woes. They should have been told that yes, Maori and others need solutions, yes there is still racism around that needs more work but actually, you are suffering due to our class bashing Neo Liberal agenda. And we will fix that by giving you cheap houses where you can put down roots and we will ensure your kids are able to have food on the table and get a good education.
But we chose instead the path of division, partisanship and waste and where does it ultimately lead? Civil war? You cannot give more rights to 15% of the population and expect the other 85% to accept it because something bad happened 150 years ago. It ultimately will not stand and it wont be no good for anyone.
Ardern is not a hapless victim dragged along by the Maori Caucus, she made this choice and thinks she is being transformational. Effing hubris! IRL, we should substitute ‘transformational’ for the more accurate “destructive”.
buahahahahaha So who gonna initiate this civil war????? You Fantail??? Nah you clowns are to scared you’ll want someone else to do your dirty work like the PI who have anti-Maori sentiments but can you rely on them to physically attack Maori in public?? Be careful what you wish Fantail as it could comeback to bite all of us in the end!!
Nah, Stephen, that’s not how it will play out.
The Pakeha will reach out to their kith and kin across the Tasman. Australia will get its eighth state, and we will get the twenty-first century equivalent of General Cameron’s 12,000 imperial troops.
You think we Pakeha are a bunch of racists, mate? Wait till you get a load of the Aussies!
Australia is owned by China Chris
I doubt very much the kith and kin will come here and kill us Maori they have there own indigenous battles coming up to sort. I also doubt that they are any more racist than our Pakeha here, in fact as of late our Pakeha racism has gone in to overdrive and a new level some would say many horns are starting to show.
That’s just silly Stephen New Zealanders are on the whole fair minded people.
Stephen, you ask to prove what they say. So let’s turn about.
Can you name one society where the majority put up with being on the bottom without equal representation for very long. (SA maybe but that didnt last as the world became more connected and people began to understand the tyranny)
Name any tribal society that works well today. Has an equally happy and thriving populace? (Again, do a deep dive into SA and see how well that’s working and dont forget they have majority rule and equal representation supposedly). Its not doing terribly but its mired in corruption and I am not sure that the living standards for ordinary South Africans have improved much.
Nzers of all stripes (including if the polls are to be believed – 50% of Maori) do not want what this Govt euphemistically refers to as Co Governance. They want a multi cultural, economically stable and fair NZ. Where those who need a hand get a hand up and opportunity to thrive and where that is predicated by need not race. Where Maori culture is revered but not used to tyrannise, where all NZers can freely celebrate their cultures.
Also you keep referring to the rest of NZers as Pakeha, they’re not, a good chunk are other – Asians 15%, Pasifica 10% and others from all over. You also repeat that ‘our ancestors’ were responsible for signing the treaty and stealing land. The vast majority of New Zealanders do not have any ancestors that were around at that time. Many emigrated to NZ when the Treaty of Waitangi was considered a defunct document, most had zero knowledge of it.
I dont want civil war. Like most NZers I want a fair go for all with everybody getting on. To do this we have to stop fracturing along race and gender lines and get on with the business of rooting out global capitalism and the rot in NZ that is the property owning class and all the misery and distortion that has brought.
And Chris is right, Aussie wouldnt want an unstable tribal nation on its doorstep or the massive influx of immigrants it would receive as a result. They probably would step in and stabilise things.
Fantail a lot of assumptions dude no data to back up your rant?
The Majority in this country are Pakeha (European) which is who I am referring too, their ancestors came to NZ in the 1800s. They now rightfully call NZ home and own most of the land and control significant amount of resources in our country. Those resources once belong to Maori who have been impoverished because of this lost which I don’t need to remind you how that came about but if you’re wondering I’ll leave a link to substantiate my claims.
http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/
There a book written by a sociologist professor named Robin D’Angelo called ‘White fragility’ and has important info on white people’s insecurities when discussing highly charged issues to do with race.
She has done a wonderful job explaining behaviors that crop up when racial issues are mentioned. It’s a fascinating book and I believe that this is the type of info that may help with your insecurities IMO.
And finally do you really believe that the Joe blog maori out there wants’ to take over the country and disenfranchise millions of NZers??? Dude most just want a warm place to live, food in the belly, someone to love, and something to do!! Understanding NZ history I believe is important to understanding NZ and NZers in its entirety the good the bad and the ugly warts and all so you can understand that Maori looked after Pakeha when they arrived on our shores they were in awe by their tools the new knowledge and technology. When the TOW was sign Maori already had deep relationships with Pakeha most of their descendance are here today and some are part Maori.
Sometimes stepping backwards into the past can take you forward immeasurably and set you free.
Fantail and Stephen I enjoyed your exchange.
I will now probably for saying that be tarred with the name of a Dickens character.
We already gave rights to a minority when the TOW was signed and the flood gates opened that is colonisation
Looks like there’s a superfluous syllable in the title, Chris. It’s “Racial remedies”, right?
The title ‘Radical remedies’ shows how tired and dated the old left think tanks have become.
If a company on the stock exchange offered only 28% accountability to shareholders that invested all their money in it, that company would be seen as a high risk.
Consequently, a lack of accountability up front – a channel for any valid and necessary criticism by shareholders – in an infrastructure project does not engender confidence that the requisite risk mitigation strategies will be present at the engineering level, nor that they will be appropriately addressed if identified.
The key problem is that risks bound up in infrastructure projects don’t sit in isolation – they have an onflow effect. Those risks will wind up impacting the risk profile of every other company on the stock exchange – along with every other private commercial entity out there.
Competency, accountability and transparency are closely correlated with an ability to deliver