Similar Posts

66 Comments

  1. So what this was in fact about was land confiscations, white dominant culture, white colonialism and rebalance for the damage caused to Maori by taking 90% of their land by whitey.

    Well why didn’t the Prime Minister and her ministerial entourage just come out and say that in the first place? You know, just be honest and up front?

    Here we were being led to think it was about water infrastructure and clean water! And some privatisation thingy no one was talking about until late 5 Waters law making stage starting boiling over because no one from Labour wanted to be honest about it.

    I missed the usual back slapping celebrations in parliament when it passed into law and endless media interviews by the PM and relevant minister on this fabulous new legislation. Now why would that be?

    At least you are honest about it’s real purpose. Thank you because someone had to be!

    1. thoughtful people do not see it that way…racists would latch onto those views like leech however. Xray, I know you’re not a racist…but racists will think you are and agree with you here.

  2. “.. share power with Māori as promised by the Treaty”

    No, power sharing was never mentioned in the ToW. Nor were Principles Partnerships or Co governance/government.

    Which part of “..the Rights & Privileges of British subjects” don’t you understand ?

    1. hats not how Maori understood it…and the Crown broke their own treaty before the ink was dry…

  3. If this 3 Waters had been presented in the 1st year of Jacinda’s reign the pixie dust would have blinded people to the truth and it would have had a free ride . Now the gloss is wearing off the lies and the hidden agendas are being exposed and the voters are bitting back
    .The arrogance showed by Mahuta and Jacinda are not winning any one over and this will be one of the catalyst to their defeat at the next election

  4. Tukoroirangi Morgan has been appointed to lead the northern Three Waters iwi body.

    And he has already warned that Auckland taking more and more water from the Waikato River is not sustainable.

    W0w what a proclamation from our treaty partner. The Tongariro power scheme built in.the 1970s diverted an extra 2500 million litres of water per day down the Waikato river. Auckland has a consent to take 300 millions/l/day ,20 km before it flows into the Tasman sea
    3 waters is sunk in treaty quagmire if we are going to act on Maori knowledge flowing from Tuko’s mouth. And we can’t get rid of him , the new form of Maori democracy

  5. What scares me about three waters is the cost to users. The new entities are going to take hundreds of millions to set up – buy new vehicles, layers of bureaucracy and managers with eye watering salaries. The cost of improving the water infrastructure will be in the billions. All of this will need to be borrowed.
    Water users (all of us) will pay for all of this including a large return to investors and a significant dividend to iwi. The cost could be something like 100 + per week, per household. This will result in worsening inequality.
    We’ve got it right with the system we’ve got now. No one owns the water and communities own their own water infrastructure. The only bit missing is a contestable fund for councils who are struggling.

    1. You clearly have no idea if you think the system we have now is working. The country’s water infrastructure is fucked but keep telling yourself it’s not, with your head buried in the sand. That same sand is becoming wetter by the minute. Some on this site fail to grasp the reality of our broken infrastructure and are naive enough to think local government has the funds to fix.

      1. Well said, MHK! Neil and his like are simply and lazily acting irresponsibly and continue ‘kicking the can down the road’ – as the Nats and their allies in Councils have been doing for decades. Their answer? No problem here, just move on…. Yeah, right!!

  6. Very well described Martyn–close to Column of the Year–given the strands you wove together.

    A propaganda victory for the right no doubt, who twisted the narrative of profiteering Farmers, Corporates and right wing local Govt. Councillors into a democracy issue. Hello…so many district Councils 3 Waters infrastructure are in a parlous state. In Kaitaia Councillors brick themselves every time there is a big rain event, and the water supply is regularly undrinkable, but hey until recently we have had good ’ol boy Natzo councillors for years eh…nothing to see here was John Carter’s mantra.

    But, that h20 has to keep flowing to the sheep shaggers and horticulturists regardless. A clue was all the Stop 3 waters signs on rural properties NOT hooked up to any 3 waters services!

    Unfortunately NZ Labour’s neo Blairism means they find it incredibly difficult to tackle business head on and explain things in a way that this post managed in a few paragraphs.

    How many commenters above, terrified of Māori influence are under 50 it would be interesting to know.

    1. Under 50 and not afraid of Maori influence. Whats missing in three waters is the ability for any other group to have a say in how our water infrastructure is managed. The power given to maoridom is disproportionate and unreasonable as it stands. The entire governance structure is focused on iwi – such as the area boundaries that follow tribal boundaries. Yes mana whenua should be at the table but not be the only ones there…
      And a dividend needs to be taken off the table as this will only drive inequality. Ngai Tahu for example are worth 1.7 billion and are thriving. They are also one of the main drivers of Three Waters.
      As a whole we have a really good system, you turn on the tap, the water is free for all. Think for a second what happens when we start to charge businesses for water – who who pay? The consumer in the super market. Three waters is the wrong answer.

      1. Neil, we don’t get a say in how our water is managed now. 3 waters is an absolute improvement. User pays so cough up beef and dairy farmers and other commercial polluters and ticket clippers!

    2. How many commenters above are genuinely concerned about water affordability and ‘pseudo privatisation’. Read the details of the bill and see if that just might be a very pressing concern for many of us.

      1. Sinic it will be you who’s coughing up. When you buy anything from tomatoes to pork, water is part of the growing process. Surely this will just drive the cost of living up…

        1. How so Neil? I grow my own tomatoes and don’t eat pork. If the prices for meat and veg continue to skyrocket I will continue to curb my eating choices and grow more of my own produce. I’m not a price taker at the supermarket and neither should anyone else be. I vote with my wallet on such matters. Others do also. 3 waters has nothing to do with the cost of living, other than making commercial parties pay for their consumption and pollution, at the same prices as households do. They may choose to pass on costs, and we can choose to shop elsewhere and grow our own food, for example. Unviable farms and businesses will fail without sufficient custom if their price expectations are unrealistic. And the world will keep on turning.

  7. Thank you for spelling it out – finally! There are big changes coming, globally, for the agriculture sector. Specifically around efficient use of resources – water and land – as well as waste management and environment protection. The Dutch government have recently mandated the closure of 3000 farms due to low quality and out dated farming practices.

    1. “due to low quality and out dated farming practices.”

      That would be the same Netherlands that is so inefficient that they are the world’s second largest agricultural producer despite a relatively small country with a very high population density with doubled yields on the same amount of fertilizer since the 1960s? Indeed dutch farmers are so out of date, they were among those chosen to bring Afghan farmers up to date with modern practices during the US occupation.

      The main rationale for closing down Dutch farms is the levels of nitrogen in and therefore preservation of, natural spaces (one waits to see is these natural spaces and closed farms will be preserved by turning them into much needed housing). Interestingly the nitrogen output going into Dutch soil has been in decline for about 30 years due to increased efficiency.

      However take at face value that the nitrogen levels are far too high and must be reduced far more quickly. There are two obvious consequences.

      First that agricultural production will transfer somewhere else, likely to farmers who are less efficient and countries with less strict legislation.

      The second and far more serious is that we are heading into global food shortages (and further food price inflation) due to the war in Ukraine, disrupting energy supplies which worsens existing disruption of food and fertiliser production and shipping. (The high price of natural gas means most of European nitrogen based fertiliser manufacture has already stopped along with China banning some fertiliser exports). Compound this with a geopolitical reshuffle and looming debt crisis that will dwarf 2008.

      In such a period of global instability, food insecurity and famine are a given. Therefore taking thousands of farms offline at this moment in a country that is highly productive is akin to Germany taking Nuclear power plants offline (and now burning more coal, more lignite while facing blackouts and industrial decline) or perhaps NZ closing refineries.

      Be extremely cautious of getting rid of or disrupting old energy and food production systems till you have something to replace them with. The average person will cut down the forest for firewood before they freeze and butcher the wildlife before they starve. Is that the environmental outcome we are looking for?

  8. Three Waters has nothing to do with irrigation schemes. At least that is what the government says. So Three Waters is not about Groundswell or farming. It is about water distributed by local authorities for drinking, household, commercial and industrial use. If farming and Groundswell are upset then it must because they fear that their irrigation schemes are next in line for co-governance. Is the government and Iwi encouraging that fear?

    Perhaps they are. If they follow your advice, that is, “solving the question of Maori interests”, then all waters will be subject to a co-governance regime with licensing and fees paid for water use. Farmers won’t be be just paying for the infrastructure, they will be paying for the actual water, since it is apparent you think water (or 50% of it) should be owned by iwi. Next in line will be the hydroelectric stations. With a consequential up to 50% or more increase in electricity costs.

    Is it surprising that this issue has ignited public concern as the broader implications sink in?

    1. “If farming and Groundswell are upset then it must because they fear that their irrigation schemes are next in line for co-governance.”

      Fear…

      F alse
      E vidence
      A ppearing
      R eal

      Lots of statements Wayne, little concrete evidence to support.

  9. Government don’t need three waters to stop underpricing of water and sales by councils, they just need to change the laws to stop water being given away or used frivolously and sold.

    aka it didn’t seem to be an issue for Government to change the information law over fears councils may be threatening national security and defence with LGOIMA.

    Funny enough government managed to do that, without a massive bureaucracy and change! Simple and cheap is best and 3 Waters will cost the government the elections while clearing the way for Natz to privatise! Similar to when Labour bought in student tertiary fees, Natz then kept it, and bought in student loans.

    Labour have created the system to make water a profit centre, sold offshore and unaffordable just like they have for housing and education while pretending it was for their benefit.

  10. If Labour and Greens were so worried about climate change why do they keep getting awarded fossil status at world climate events and why climate change was not demanded in the free trade agreements as they most important risk factor?

    1. Does not seem related to water, but more related to their identity obsession.

      This should be addressed via the treaty claims and science (aka structural racism in the justice system) not some sort of bogus virtue signalling, while dividing the countries social services and assets on racial lines that again are not very easy to ascertain (aka 99.9% Pakeha can identify as Maori, and the treaty was supposed to have it 50:50 – shouldn’t the assets be 50:50 based on both English settler and Maori ancestry – bear in mind land was also confiscated/given from Pakeha settlers for schools etc as well as Maori).

  11. So, I will give an example so as not to incite the racists. Ukraine is an example: The kiwi subconsciously backs Russia. Similarly, in 1863 Maori were invaded by the British empire through force. Ukraine people and Maori understand the difference between a treaty and an invasion. I would find it difficult for anyone to justify an invasion, oops that historical amnesia.

Comments are closed.