But Delta did arrive, and the Prime Minister has become the lightning-rod for a noisy political movement dedicated to the utter destruction of both herself and her government. Labour’s Three Waters project can only assume an ever-increasing salience as that anti-government movement grows.
What Vance was careful to sidestep in her Polyanna-ish determination to focus our attention on the good intentions of Nanaia Mahuta and her colleagues, was the rock-solid promises of both the National and Act parties to dismantle the entire scheme the moment they reclaim the Treasury Benches. This is hardly surprising, because the Right’s pledge to repeal Three Waters makes a nonsense of the Government’s key explanation for the undemocratic construction of the four “entities” responsible for delivering the Three Water’s objectives.
We are told, by Vance herself, that the governance structure has been designed according to the specifications of the Standard & Poor’s credit rating agency – now known as S&P Global Ratings. Without it, says S&P, the cheap money required to repair New Zealand’s drinking-, storm-, and waste-water infrastructure will not be forthcoming.
It is worth spending a few moments unpicking this extraordinary intervention from the enforcers of international finance. Essentially, what the world’s money-lenders are saying is that, when it comes to financing large infrastructure projects, democratic accountability is a deal-breaker. The surprise here is not S&P’s demand, but this government’s uncritical acceptance of it. Rarely has the naked power-politics of the neoliberal world order been on such unabashed display. That the Labour Cabinet, Labour’s parliamentary caucus, and the Labour Party organisation, itself, have so meekly rolled-over on this issue is astonishing. That they have then concluded that slitting Democracy’s throat is their sad but necessary duty, is more than astonishing – it’s chilling.
Vance simply passes over this brutal abrogation of New Zealand’s sovereignty, and the political facilitation it has elicited, without comment, exposing with unusual clarity the ideological bankruptcy of “woke” journalism. Vance is eloquent in her description of the racism inherent in local government’s treatment of Māori, but she has nothing at all to say about the derangement of this country’s democratic institutions at the behest of neoliberalism’s international enforcers. The wonder of it all is that Vance and her journalistic colleagues still evince surprise and indignation when they find themselves bracketed with the Left’s politicians as “enemies of the people”.
Returning to S&P’s bottom line, the question arises: How will the world’s lenders react to the pledge of New Zealand’s right-wing parties to dismantle the Three Waters project? Asked to invest money in a venture so subject to the whims of the electorate, it beggars belief to suggest that any lender so disposed would not demand a premium rate of interest. Only a fool would throw cheap money into such a risky enterprise, and whatever else international financiers may be – they are not fools.
This creates an insurmountable problem for Mahuta and her colleagues. If the whole justification for the undemocratic structure of the Three Waters project is that nothing else can guarantee access to the cheap money needed to make it happen. And if it then turns out that the political risk involved with the Three Waters project is so great that the possibility of cheap money must be taken off the table. Well, then the justification the Three Waters project – as presently structured – must also be taken off the table.
That this would be the outcome must have been clear to Mahuta’s economic advisers. So, why is she still proceeding? Without the support of the right-wing parties, the Three Waters project simply cannot assume that the necessary cheap money will be forthcoming. Mahuta’s conduct only makes sense if the cheap money argument is nothing more than a smokescreen for another, much more important, if unstated, set of objectives.
Vance, herself, makes reference to this opaque communications environment:
“Where the Government has failed is in its communication of its intentions, and critics have exploited this weakness. Mahuta is not a natural communicator and has done a poor job of explaining how the asset ownership works, fudging direct questions about royalties.”
As well she might, if “royalties” were included among those important and unstated objectives.
Vance will not, however, entertain for one moment the idea that there may be more to Three Waters than cheap money. With unseemly relish she reaches for that trusty journalistic stand-by: the accusation of conspiracy theorising. So handy whenever the paths of inquiry lead into territory neither editors nor publishers are keen to have their journalists traverse:
“Some critics have drawn a very long bow with a conspiracy theory which links the Three Waters proposals to the question of allocation of water rights.”
A long bow? Really? When the Waitangi Tribunal and a growing number of iwi have made it clear that the question of “Who owns the water?” must be answered soon – and that the correct answer is neither “The Crown”, nor “Nobody/Everybody”. A long bow? When the He Puapua Report, commissioned by Mahuta, makes it clear that by 2040 the restoration of Māori water rights should be an acknowledged and accomplished fact.
Mahuta’s strategic reticence on discussing Three Waters freely and fulsomely, along with Vance’s airy dismissal of any significant reasons for her doing so, are all of a piece. At their heart lies a deep (and not unjustified) fear that the truth will outrage sufficient New Zealanders to kill the project stone dead. This government, and its journalistic bodyguard, no longer trust the democratic system to deliver the “right” answers. Their response: to propose, and defend, a massive centralisation of power in bodies sealed-off from democratic accountability.
This would have been a bad idea in the very best of circumstances. Pursued with the sort of ruthlessness we have witnessed in the case of Nanaia Mahuta’s Three Waters, it has turned out to be much more than a bad idea. In the minds of a growing number of frightened and angry New Zealanders Mahuta’s project is further evidence of a political project of unprecedented scale and ambition. Justified, or unjustified, in the fraught conditions imposed upon New Zealand society by the Delta incursion, the belief is growing that Labour is making plans for New Zealand. Plans that its citizens will have no opportunity to either endorse or reject.
Andrea Vance rejects these people’s fears as conspiracy theories. She remains confident that Three Waters and its political siblings will be “yesterday’s controversies” by the time the next General Election rolls around in 2023. If she’s right, then all will be well for the Labour Government and its media apologists.
But, if she’s wrong …..
What Vance was careful to sidestep in her Polyanna-ish determination to focus our attention on the good intentions of Nanaia Mahuta and her colleagues, was the rock-solid promises of both the National and Act parties to dismantle the entire scheme the moment they reclaim the Treasury Benches. This is hardly surprising, because the Right’s pledge to repeal Three Waters makes a nonsense of the Government’s key explanation for the undemocratic construction of the four “entities” responsible for delivering the Three Water’s objectives.
We are told, by Vance herself, that the governance structure has been designed according to the specifications of the Standard & Poor’s credit rating agency – now known as S&P Global Ratings. Without it, says S&P, the cheap money required to repair New Zealand’s drinking-, storm-, and waste-water infrastructure will not be forthcoming.
It is worth spending a few moments unpicking this extraordinary intervention from the enforcers of international finance. Essentially, what the world’s money-lenders are saying is that, when it comes to financing large infrastructure projects, democratic accountability is a deal-breaker. The surprise here is not S&P’s demand, but this government’s uncritical acceptance of it. Rarely has the naked power-politics of the neoliberal world order been on such unabashed display. That the Labour Cabinet, Labour’s parliamentary caucus, and the Labour Party organisation, itself, have so meekly rolled-over on this issue is astonishing. That they have then concluded that slitting Democracy’s throat is their sad but necessary duty, is more than astonishing – it’s chilling.
Vance simply passes over this brutal abrogation of New Zealand’s sovereignty, and the political facilitation it has elicited, without comment, exposing with unusual clarity the ideological bankruptcy of “woke” journalism. Vance is eloquent in her description of the racism inherent in local government’s treatment of Māori, but she has nothing at all to say about the derangement of this country’s democratic institutions at the behest of neoliberalism’s international enforcers. The wonder of it all is that Vance and her journalistic colleagues still evince surprise and indignation when they find themselves bracketed with the Left’s politicians as “enemies of the people”.
Returning to S&P’s bottom line, the question arises: How will the world’s lenders react to the pledge of New Zealand’s right-wing parties to dismantle the Three Waters project? Asked to invest money in a venture so subject to the whims of the electorate, it beggars belief to suggest that any lender so disposed would not demand a premium rate of interest. Only a fool would throw cheap money into such a risky enterprise, and whatever else international financiers may be – they are not fools.
This creates an insurmountable problem for Mahuta and her colleagues. If the whole justification for the undemocratic structure of the Three Waters project is that nothing else can guarantee access to the cheap money needed to make it happen. And if it then turns out that the political risk involved with the Three Waters project is so great that the possibility of cheap money must be taken off the table. Well, then the justification the Three Waters project – as presently structured – must also be taken off the table.
That this would be the outcome must have been clear to Mahuta’s economic advisers. So, why is she still proceeding? Without the support of the right-wing parties, the Three Waters project simply cannot assume that the necessary cheap money will be forthcoming. Mahuta’s conduct only makes sense if the cheap money argument is nothing more than a smokescreen for another, much more important, if unstated, set of objectives.
Vance, herself, makes reference to this opaque communications environment:
“Where the Government has failed is in its communication of its intentions, and critics have exploited this weakness. Mahuta is not a natural communicator and has done a poor job of explaining how the asset ownership works, fudging direct questions about royalties.”
As well she might, if “royalties” were included among those important and unstated objectives.
Vance will not, however, entertain for one moment the idea that there may be more to Three Waters than cheap money. With unseemly relish she reaches for that trusty journalistic stand-by: the accusation of conspiracy theorising. So handy whenever the paths of inquiry lead into territory neither editors nor publishers are keen to have their journalists traverse:
“Some critics have drawn a very long bow with a conspiracy theory which links the Three Waters proposals to the question of allocation of water rights.”
A long bow? Really? When the Waitangi Tribunal and a growing number of iwi have made it clear that the question of “Who owns the water?” must be answered soon – and that the correct answer is neither “The Crown”, nor “Nobody/Everybody”. A long bow? When the He Puapua Report, commissioned by Mahuta, makes it clear that by 2040 the restoration of Māori water rights should be an acknowledged and accomplished fact.
Mahuta’s strategic reticence on discussing Three Waters freely and fulsomely, along with Vance’s airy dismissal of any significant reasons for her doing so, are all of a piece. At their heart lies a deep (and not unjustified) fear that the truth will outrage sufficient New Zealanders to kill the project stone dead. This government, and its journalistic bodyguard, no longer trust the democratic system to deliver the “right” answers. Their response: to propose, and defend, a massive centralisation of power in bodies sealed-off from democratic accountability.
This would have been a bad idea in the very best of circumstances. Pursued with the sort of ruthlessness we have witnessed in the case of Nanaia Mahuta’s Three Waters, it has turned out to be much more than a bad idea. In the minds of a growing number of frightened and angry New Zealanders Mahuta’s project is further evidence of a political project of unprecedented scale and ambition. Justified, or unjustified, in the fraught conditions imposed upon New Zealand society by the Delta incursion, the belief is growing that Labour is making plans for New Zealand. Plans that its citizens will have no opportunity to either endorse or reject.
Andrea Vance rejects these people’s fears as conspiracy theories. She remains confident that Three Waters and its political siblings will be “yesterday’s controversies” by the time the next General Election rolls around in 2023. If she’s right, then all will be well for the Labour Government and its media apologists.
But, if she’s wrong …..
Chris
Trotter is a political commentator who blogs at bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz.
5 comments:
Andrea Vance is not to be trusted. Occasionally she throws a bone to the conservatives. In my experience she is a " leftie" through and through. From my recollections she used to be on tv 1 and always agreed with the Labour agenda. I haven't watched New Zealand tv for a couple of years so maybe she is still part of the cabal.
New Zealanders will not let "Three Waters" take effect. If they do it is goodbye to democracy in this country. I oppose " Three Waters" and so do most people I have spoken to. We are not protesters or anti- vaxxers as has been portrayed in our bought and paid for media.
That J. Ardern is pushing this tells me she is not suitable to lead a democratic nation.In fact, we should make sure anybody pushing this is not elected to the New Zealand parliament or our local councils.
The real scandal is that Stuff did not want to publish Jordan William'd reply.
Alexandra
As Maori are not the Indigenous People of New Zealand, UNDRIP does apply to them!
The New Zealand Government does not have a definition of, “The Indigenous people of New Zealand”.
Maori are not the Indigenous People of New Zealand.
There is absolutely no evidence that Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand in either Maori oral history or forensic evidence. Maori arrived in New Zealand by canoe to find New Zealand already inhabited by the tangata whenua or the indigenous people of New Zealand, a fact stated by Dr Ranganui Walker in the 1986 New Zealand Yearbook, page 18, when Head of Maori Studies at the Auckland University, “The traditions are quite clear on one point, whenever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants) living in New Zealand”.
This was endorsed by Ngapuhi Leader David Rankin when he stated in the Northern Advocate on the 27 December 2012, "If we believe our histories, then we as Maori are not the indigenous people of New Zealand. He pointed to numerous Maori oral histories which referred to people being here when the first Maori arrived, including fair-skinned people”.
He said, “Details of much of the country's past was being concealed by academic historians. They are worried that their own research will be exposed so they have worked hard to ridicule and suppress any Maori history which disagrees with their views”.
“Details of much of the country's past was being concealed by academic historians. They are worried that their own research will be exposed, so they have worked hard to ridicule and suppress any Maori history which disagrees with their views”.
"However, the tide is turning, and more people are now seeing that there is a whole history of our country that has been concealed and which will have major implications for Treaty settlements for example."
When Captain Cook “discovered” New Zealand, there were people living in New Zealand who were later called the tangata Maori, but since that time, they have continued to intermarry with other races until today, most can only claim a minute trace of tangata Maori ancestry.
The Signing of UNDRIP by Prime Minister, Hon John Key.
In 2007 Prime Minister Helen Clarke had asked the Crown Law Office for advice on whether the New Zealand Government should sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and they advised her, “Not to sign it” because it contradicted the Treaty of Waitangi and our Constitution of one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour, or creed, therefore, “She did not sign it”!
On the 19 April 2010, Prime Minister, Hon John Key sent the Minister of Maori Affairs, Hon Pita Sharples to New York to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People without asking the Crown Law Office for advice, a definition of who were the indigenous people of New Zealand, or had discussed it with Cabinet, but went ahead and did it on his own. See attached letters below obtained under the Official Information Act 1982 from Crown Law.
What any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not law”. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Book 11, Chapter 1. Treatise of Social Contract, 1863.
Even when Hon Pita Sharples signed the Declaration he could not say, “Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand”, he could only say, “Maori hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people, or tangata whenua, of New Zealand”.
On the 21 October 2021, Kim Laurenson, Crown Counsel, Crown Law Office stated, “There is no statutory definition of the indigenous people”, therefore, Hon Pita Sharples misled the United Nations when he stated, “Maori hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people, or tangata whenua, of New Zealand”. See letter below from Kim Laurenson, Crown Law Office dated 21 October 2021.
Prepared by: Ross Baker,
The basic idea of central government somehow taking over New Zealand's water assets, water policies, responsibility for raising loans, etc. is quite sensible on its own.
However, the obvious, blatant racism behind this is why we must fight that evil legislation with all our strength. Great to know that ACT and National will cancel it in 2023 - and great (as Chris suspects) that with the backlash against Labour because of its inept handling of Covid and its variant, opposition parties now seem certain to be in power in 2023.
Perhaps the Opposition will only need to cancel the racist part of the legislation.
"Without it, says S&P, the cheap money required to repair New Zealand’s drinking-, storm-, and waste-water infrastructure will not be forthcoming."
Same for Australia, when Morrison was dragging his feet about signing up to ridiculous targets at COP26 he was told that Australia would pay a higher interest rate for debt if they didn't sign.
The problem is Govts that cannot live within their means, they drown us in a sea of debt that can never be repaid. The international banks really run the world.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.