Govt to strip Three Waters bill of ‘dangerous’ entrenchment clause
The Government is stripping anti-privatisation entrenchment clauses from its Three Waters legislation, admitting that the unexpected amendment was a “mistake”.
What would be better than Labour backing down over entrenchment to stop the privatisation of water would be not needing to have threatened it in the first place!
ACTs first amendment to the 3 Waters legislation was to immediately create Public-Private-Partnerships (it was voted down) so let’s not pretend ACT don’t want to start privatisation programs ASAP and National sold the 49% Hydro Assets that sparked the ownership debate with Māori that ironically is what 3 Waters is attempting to solve!
The Right can’t help but privatise State assets!
Meanwhile the funding structures to create 3 Waters allows for privatisation by those buying the contracts on the creation side of this which should be just as concerning as the possibility of ACT and National privatising it.
This needs more time, yet Labour are ramming it through and making forced errors like entrenchment.
It has been a stressful and mean spirited year. Staff and Ministers are tired and the expectations of what are being agreed to as opposed to a in the weeds appraisal of the actual ramifications of legislation means mistakes happen and provide negative narrative ammunition to the opposition.
David Parker needs to be co-ordinating with a small team including Chippie that is vetting everything now because the last bloody thing we need is another cock up like this before Christmas.
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
David Parker will be giving his legal advisers a call for advice. Paul Beverley, Paul Majurey and Christopher Finlayson!
Dunny flush 40 cents.
Congestion charge $1.20 for high usage times to have a poo.
Capacity charge for lots of shite in a day $1.20/day. Shit at night to save money on this. Discount for pissing in shower tray even better.
Seymour could make taking a shit and piss highly profitable.
Yes, was just a wee mistake Martyn…easily done, nothing to see here.
PM didn’t even know….but then was at the same meeting as per Mahutas letter, ohhh dear….luckily Mahuta is untouchable otherwise she would be dog tucker in new year
cabinet re-shuffle.
Until the next time of course.
Well, it was either stupid beyond all stupidity or it was a great distraction to the far more serious constitutional changing aspects of this law, and look, they listened. And well played if not unspeakably devious.
I just hope Jacinda and Chippy have got over their temporary memory losses. That was concerning.
I guess it will pass into law and it has an outside chance of succeeding if turkeys like Tuku shut the hell up and allow co-governanceto prove itself. But if not, it’s gone by this time next year!
Absolutely disgusting. If Labour proceeds with this programme at this point they are OPENLY embracing the theft of our water assets.
The government has apparently failed to realise that, by handing control of water assets over to the tribal elites, it has effectively already privatised it. Entrenchment would just make it near-impossible for the public to take back in the future what has been taken from us.
If 3 waters goes ahead as planned, water ownership goes out of public hands.
You have a weird definition of theft, I have been burgled a couple of times & whoever did it (they were never caught, about 25 years apart in different areas of town so fairly safe to assume it was different people) took off with my stuff & it was never seen again by me. The water assets are still there, there is still a form of local control & those areas with insufficient funds to update their water assets will get government money to pay for it. I can think of more important issues to get upset about.
Like John Keys theft in taxing paper boys and girls.
“Like John Keys theft in taxing paper boys and girls.”
This is orders of magnitude more serious than the above issue. What happened there was mean-spirited, many of us thought. The 3 (now 5) waters proposal is theft by government. Attempts at entrenchment were unconstitutional.
Not if you’re the paper boy or girl it’s not.
Your definition of mean spirited also needs looking at.
Just wait until you start paying every increasing water charges. Of course if you didn’t want to pay, you could always do without.
OK Bonnie….you were robbed twice, would you accept it if the burglar returned the items stolen from you but charged you a fee each time you used the item again?
Probably not…..
It’s a funny sort of theft when assets like pipes and infrastructure are all still fully available to the public to use for supply of water etc. And ownership is still accountable under our national democratic structure. I think step back and bit and direct your thoughts a bit more
Democratic? Democratic when you can vote on the governorship. And in this model 50% cannot be touched. It is anything but democratic!
Stephen+Minto: it’s theft. Moreover, it’s undemocratic. Nobody who calls themselves a Lefty should support it.
Read the proposed legislation. In particular, read about the TMOTW statements. Nothing democratic about them! And handing over control control of assets – which is what’s being proposed – is theft.
I can only agree if you can agree Key selling off our power cos was theft given his abuse of office. A referendum voted against sell offs but Key, went ahead anyway. His reasoning? He said he was voted in with a with a majority so therefore he had a mandate to do so.
Any difference here?
Criticizing the current government doesn’t make one a John Key fan. As far as I’m concerned, “Key” is a 4-letter word.
Anything that furthers the cause of privatization is theft.
The dams, pylons & wires are still there, just like they were when the Government owned, but does your power bill still look the same? Are you reaping the benefits of all those promised efficiencies? Currently we are all being played and there seems to be plenty of useful idiots who are only happy to help hoodwink us.
Repealing and dropping 3 Water’s and entrenchment type protections will be NZ’s longer term downfall.
Singapore’s water management is integrated with land management strategies such as ” green lungs” protection of waterways and forestation. Water is tightly controlled, centralised and management of water supply, sanitation and stormwater drainage is by one sole agency, the government’s Public Utilities Board.
It’s called the “four tap” strategy and has mandatory fluoridation.
The result of not defragmenting to umpteen local authorities has improved future water security for the 8358 per km population. Singapore is in the highest ranked countries for drinking water quality above WHO standards and well above NZ’s water quality.
Just this last month a caution ‘do not swim’ sign has been erected at a local mountain stream near its source. From pristine last year to toxic from forestry and leachates from dairy upstream. The river is a main feeder into all of the Waikato catchment.
Repeal, Decentralised life source management, Procrastination and She’ll be right policy is the death knell.
OToole: “Singapore’s water management..”
NZ isn’t Singapore, or anywhere else in SE Asia, come to that. What can be made to work in Singapore simply isn’t practicable here. Note that Council ownership of water assets – as currently applies – is public ownership. The proposed model isn’t.
If any government wishes to prohibit the sale of water to overseas countries, it must accomplish this by other legislative means. Most certainly not by attempting to use entrenchment. That bespeaks, at best, sheer blinding ignorance on the part of those involved. At worst, it’s a casual disregard for democracy, and malice aforethought.
Well worth a read, Dame Anne Sslmond in Newsroom: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/anne-salmond-three-waters-beyond-entrenchment
A considered way forward.
Yep me think too many protesters too much.
These same clowns would be all for it if Nact were in charge. Of course the usual reply would be ” no we wouldn’t “.
Seymour is the class clown of NZ politics because removing this clause he believes it’s a gotcha moment, which is childish.
He could learn a thing or too from Dame Anne Salmond however Seymours ego and immaturity would get in the way.
Yes NaSC, Seymour is far to inmature to listen too any reasoned argument.
Yes Salmond’s made some fine contributions to political debates lately. Lately she seems like one of very few New Zealanders who could be described as a public intellectual. We have a surfeit of strident activists, but very few public intellectuals.
Well put PP, that’s my observation as well. Dame Anne’s commentries are taongas. We certainly have too many ill informed ‘strident activists’.
Another case of a politican caught out forgetting they did know about something that they claimed they were not involved in.
All parties have these memory lapses so it is up to the journalist’s to report with truth and not from a bias point of view .This is another reason for government not to involved in broadcasting to keep it honest.
Now let’s get rid of the apartheid that is creeping into every corner of NZ…
What, where?
Maybe in your little imaginary world of pixies and fairies.
There’s a lesson in here. And it’s not about pianos.
We, the public. We, who are just as adept at understanding deliberately convoluted and misleading legislation as any politician must understand that it is WE whom they must fear and respect. NOT each other. Privatising water is akin to privatising air. Are we going to be issued a breathing meter at birth and if we don’t pay, are they going to suffocate us because we can’t pay the bill? Looks fucking it! Homeless people are homeless because they can’t pay rent! That’s here and that’s now man!
Privatisation is a disaster. Unless you’re the one making money from it.
OK. Lets look at who is privatising what? Who are they, where are they, are they running while screaming? Getting one’s flat, greedy feet in the trough of basic necessities must be the surest way to guarantee a profitable return for the individual relishing the freedom to exploit the innocent. Power bills any body? Telephone? Internet? Rent? Food? Public transport? Hospitals? Education? Ka fucking ching mutha fuckas!
Imagine if we didn’t have The Daily Blog to come home to? How scary would that be? Good stuff @ M. B.
If they dont want the water privatised why parcel it up in nice little blocks to make it easier? If they went with the Wayne Brown Proposal it would cost less and ensure the water couldnt be privatised but most of us now realise that this has little to do with water quality and that the privatisation question is merely a diversion. if they want to stop privatisation, get a memo of understanding or a bill with entrenchment or whatever.
The entrenchment clause had everything to do with ensuring 3 Waters couldnt be thrown out and nothing to do with privatisation. Eugenie Sage is just a ‘useful idiot’.
If they dont want the water privatised why parcel it up in nice little blocks to make it easier? If they went with the Wayne Brown Proposal it would cost less and ensure the water couldnt be privatised but most of us now realise that this has little to do with water quality and that the privatisation question is merely a diversion. if they want to stop privatisation, get a memo of understanding or a privatisation bill with entrenchment or whatever.
The entrenchment clause had everything to do with ensuring 3 Waters couldnt be thrown out and nothing to do with privatisation. Eugenie Sage is just a ‘useful idiot’.
That last paragraph is pretty much how I understand it too, Fantail.
Instead of needing sixty percent agreement from Members of Parliament why not just have a clause in the law stating water will remain in public ownership forever and ever amen and cannot be sold to private companies? Or is that too complicated? Or ‘unconstitutional”?
Sorry if I am making things too simple.
I don’t understand this line –
The Government is stripping anti-privatisation entrenchment clauses from its Three Waters legislation, admitting that the unexpected amendment was a “mistake”.
Why would we be pleased that anti-privatisation clauses get stripped I don’t want water to be privatised ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 I think that this above is a badly written piece of communication.
I don’t even want water to be licensed to farmers, except as a rare, short-term last resort for one season – but the sods keep in their pernicketty little legal minds doing the good business, by setting 35 year terms. This when the word is that huge problems are going to rise up and show us their dirty underbelly starting in 5 or 10 years at the most.
No wonder people are falling mentally and physically sick.
GW, have you forgotten that iwi are now corporations with business interests? The “Te Mana o te Wai” provision gives iwi control of decision-making, so Three/Five Waters effectively means privatization of our waters.
Is a reverse entrenchment an infilling?
Decampment.
So who is the liar? Adern, Hipkins or Mahuta? I’d say all 3… oh and that old hag from the greens that they used like a useful idiot.
That old hag Judith Collins(Oravida) is a fucking liar and she’s still there.
Oravida is an export Kiwi water company.
Deyi “Stone” Shi owner of Oravida has worked to cultivate a strong relationship with leading National Party figures since arriving in NZ over 15 years ago.
So trying to protect our water and infrastructure for all New Zealanders is a bad thing eh Kirk whilst your National party mates rape and pillage our resource.
Hardly surprising Collins is so quiet on this story.
So who is the liar? Adern, Hipkins or Mahuta? I’d say all 3… oh and that old hag from the greens that they used like a useful idiot.
Cant help but think this was not an issue until someone said that it was initiated by the Maoris flexing their treaty “sovereignty”
We need to start over with all existing politicians or anyone currently wanting to be one locked in a shipping container until after the ‘refresh’ has been finalised.
It should be completely illegal to privatize anything, punishable by death. That’s my moderate position.
What the conflicted National party catholic retired member was saying,basic its ok, for our productive farmers to chemical enhance their stock for maximum profit,irrelevant of the chemical wast they produce on the land and let flow into our waterways (our rivers),as long as local bodies have salination plants to cleans,most local bodies do have age outdated salination plants, not up to the chem!s farmers are using, how, most wai that passes through with its farm chemical infestation,local bodies do not have modern salination screening plants to at least cleans the chem!s farmers feed their stock. Its like this sanitary product you purchase will kill 99%bacteria,what who kills the rest.
What a ridiculous jumble of words not to mention the spelling and grammar.
As for the science,oh dear.
Comments are closed.