How does Labour remove all the fish hooks that have been sewn into the guts of the 3 Waters legislation while identifying who is actually directing NZ’s water infrastructure needs?
Is Wellington directing our infrastructure needs or is Beijing?
The romanticisation of Māori Capitalism is that it is less venal than Pakeha Capitalism, but that romanticism is a double edged sword, because if Māori are using The Te Mana o Te Wai statements, (these are buried buried deep within the Water Services Entities Bill), they gain a veto power no one else has, and with that veto power they could choose to not work with NZ, they could work with Chinese water interests and that would generate a backlash explosion of anger far greater than ‘da Māoris is stealing da water’.
The question politically is would any Iwi attempt to maximise the new powers they’ve gained under 3 Waters to cut deals with Chinese water interests instead of local interests because that would be seen by many Kiwis as treason.
Interestingly the preamble of 3 Waters is all about the obligation of the State to protect Iwi expressing their interest in water – which includes their ‘right’ to sell their interests to who they want.
If New Zealanders saw Iwi using 3 Waters to cut deals with Chinese Business interests, all hell is going to break loose politically.
This money generated by trade with China comes with so many fish hooks there’s more hook than fish.
In 2017, Infrastructure NZ led a delegation of 33 senior New Zealand public and private representatives to the UK. The purpose of the all expenses paid delegation was to investigate Scotland’s infrastructure innovations since devolution, especially their water system which ended up being the structural basis for 3 Waters.
Criticism of the financial structure of 3 Waters raises serious questions about the ease with which a failing water entity could be privatized.
Under the current 3 Waters legislation, the new water entities cannot be ‘bailed’ out by their council ‘owners’, and the entities are also empowered to sell assets if they can retain the capacity to exercise their duties functions and powers. The ‘owners’ can’t prevent this, nor can the Regional Representative Group or the appointment board.
Infrastructure NZ comprises of the China Construction Bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and the Bank of China. These are the domestic pimps for China’s Belt and Road project so why are we allowing Chinese interests to influence our infrastructure?
The Pacific is the new friction point between America and China, NZ would be naive to believe we aren’t on the chessboard and only raises more questions about the need for neutrality.
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
We shouldn’t be falling for all the anti-China war propaganda. So long as they continue to be a good partner, they can be part of the solution.
Selling off public assets is highly unpopular, and should be opposed. But the idea that the U.S. buying up everything would be “better” is just silly. (Tribal capitalists buying up everything is not really much different either!)
We know that China is already building huge infrastructure projects all over the world, including advanced machinery like high speed rail. They are doing it on credit, in places where the U.S. would never have bothered — and nowadays, it’s doubtful the Americans still have the capacity to do so.
China has the ability to rebuild all of the collapsing infrastructure, AND all of the destroyed industrial base — much faster than anyone else.
They are also unique in that they wouldn’t oppose investing in an economy with a lot of state-owned enterprises (or send Victoria Nuland to overthrow that government) — it would likely be seen as a soft-power victory, as they could say that another country is following “our way instead of the American way”
@Kristoff
Martyn’s references to China and 3 Waters appear to be largely innuendo.
There is a danger of unwelcome Chinese (aka CCP) influence as there is equally the danger of unwelcome American (aka Wall Street/State Department) influence. All while inducing domestic polarisation that ensures a degree of impotency in resisting such influences.
I suspect making the narrative association between 3/5 Waters and China is a rhetorical means of tainting the legislation enough to provide cover for (or encourage) Labour ministers and persuadable bureaucrats to reverse out of the cul-de-sac that Mahuta and Ardern’s government drove us into.
More sinophobic fear mongering
Infrastructure NZ also includes shitloads of Australian banks, UK engineering consultants etc.
Martyn’s real fear is Chinese and Maori will find out they have a lot more in common with each other than either do with Pakeha.
100% Shona.
It was ideologically driven.
C’mon non Māori have been bottling and selling water for years for export…
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/editorial-whangarei-water-bottling-plant-leaves-sour-taste-with-some/LJPVM7IBDZTIC23NCW47UYUYAI/
https://awafm.co.nz/stealing-and-confiscating-iwi-leader-slams-plan-to-bottle-and-sell-bore-water/
and this one has Martyn’s nemesis–“Choyna” mentioned…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/123759486/iwi-lose-fight-to-stop-bay-of-plenty-water-bottling-expansion
Comments are closed.