One might have thought a transaction of this scale would have attracted the attention of our business journalists, capable of going beyond the so called co-governance aspect.
Are property rights too boring for business journalists these days to matter?
I read the serious media including the NZ Herald and Business Desk, but as yet have not seen any articles, which dealt with the relevant elements.
I have read articles by political journalists looking at it all from a political angle, and swiping anyone who might question governance arrangements as racist or dog whistling.
I may have missed it, but I have not seen anything in mainstream or business media that thoroughly dissects the case for nationalisation and whether the extraordinarily complex arrangements embodied in the proposal, will deliver the benefits claimed.
This is seriously important for everyone, so why have mainstream media not allocated a significant journalistic resource to it?
After living in a few other countries, I came back to NZ, in part because I thought it was a quality democracy, and also because it had a free media, albeit one not as sophisticated or as well resourced as that in Australia, the UK, Canada and the US.
While our Governments can swing from left to right and the media rolls with it, I never predicted our mainstream media would turn a blind eye to assaults on the quality of our democracy, including the conflict of interest issues around the Mahuta family.
There are some who think journalists have been bought off by government money. That will be true for some cases but I suspect it’s more likely they are either happy to ride along with the proposals, or are simply too scared of the critics, to engage in this important issue.
Either way it reflects very badly on our business media and leader writers. When I compare the risks take by war journalists and those who live in authoritarian countries such as Russia and Hungary, I know where courageous journalists live. It is not New Zealand.
It’s not too late guys. Just read the Bill and look at what some non mainstream media is publishing.
These are key questions to ask:
1. Are the three waters operations across the country so uniformly bad, wholesale state control is justified?
2. How should local authorities be compensated for their loss of property rights?
3. If there is to be forced aggregation is four entities the right number, or should it be more like ten to allow some natural groupings to form?
4. Why are they not based regional council boundaries and why is Gisborne lumped in with Wellington and Nelson?
5. How can captive customers ensure the new entities are not typical flabby monopolies that gold plate their systems?
6. Why should iwi have a dominant governance position of assets created by communities since 1840?
7. Could the new system lead to the entities paying iwi royalties for water which originally comes from the skies?
Barrie Saunders has a background in Government Relations and blogs at www.barriesaunders.wordpress.com.
I have read articles by political journalists looking at it all from a political angle, and swiping anyone who might question governance arrangements as racist or dog whistling.
I may have missed it, but I have not seen anything in mainstream or business media that thoroughly dissects the case for nationalisation and whether the extraordinarily complex arrangements embodied in the proposal, will deliver the benefits claimed.
This is seriously important for everyone, so why have mainstream media not allocated a significant journalistic resource to it?
After living in a few other countries, I came back to NZ, in part because I thought it was a quality democracy, and also because it had a free media, albeit one not as sophisticated or as well resourced as that in Australia, the UK, Canada and the US.
While our Governments can swing from left to right and the media rolls with it, I never predicted our mainstream media would turn a blind eye to assaults on the quality of our democracy, including the conflict of interest issues around the Mahuta family.
There are some who think journalists have been bought off by government money. That will be true for some cases but I suspect it’s more likely they are either happy to ride along with the proposals, or are simply too scared of the critics, to engage in this important issue.
Either way it reflects very badly on our business media and leader writers. When I compare the risks take by war journalists and those who live in authoritarian countries such as Russia and Hungary, I know where courageous journalists live. It is not New Zealand.
It’s not too late guys. Just read the Bill and look at what some non mainstream media is publishing.
These are key questions to ask:
1. Are the three waters operations across the country so uniformly bad, wholesale state control is justified?
2. How should local authorities be compensated for their loss of property rights?
3. If there is to be forced aggregation is four entities the right number, or should it be more like ten to allow some natural groupings to form?
4. Why are they not based regional council boundaries and why is Gisborne lumped in with Wellington and Nelson?
5. How can captive customers ensure the new entities are not typical flabby monopolies that gold plate their systems?
6. Why should iwi have a dominant governance position of assets created by communities since 1840?
7. Could the new system lead to the entities paying iwi royalties for water which originally comes from the skies?
3 comments:
Barry, your questions read like 3 Waters is a done deal.
Asking the questions of government would indicate to them that if some issues are sorted, than all will be OK.
As we know, the race card will be played any time adverse comment is made about issues around Maori.
I felt fear when Jackson made the comment "nothing to fear with co-governence"
What would the country gain with co-governence, no case has been presented to indicate anything other than Maori control of everything built and paid for mostly by Europeans.
Perhaps the rules for PIJFunding explain all.
Pro government and pro maori is now the same thing. Tukaki recently opined that the maori economy is around $70 billion. Aware of the culture of utu, prudent commercial media are not going to place their participation in jeopardy. Has anybody succeeded in getting any letter critical of main government direction, or of maori attitudes and influence, published of late? If the polls swing very significantly it will be interesting to see how the msm reacts, but I suspect that consideration of that $70 billion will dominate. Often wonder if the woman who bought Stuff for a dollar or whatever had any premonitions about pending subsidies. The PIJF did not start the bias but it has very certainly reinforced and entrenched it.
With chlorine levels critical for the life of my hot water cylinder and fluorine levels critical for the life of me I have always worried about the unskilled small time contractos who often run water, as at Havelock North. But having maori in charge with their notoriously easy going attitude and penchant for unaccountability (not to mention downright misappropriation *) I am now more worried than ever.
(*Readers can supply their own list of examples)
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.