Labour had the courage to carry out radical economic reforms from 1984, whilst at the same time banning nuclear-armed warship visits from our closest allies and standing up for our sovereign rights to do so.
National governments adopted and often expanded on policies Labour had initiated. National were competent economic managers, with the exception of the Muldoon-led administration of 1975-84. Robert Muldoon was intellectually able, had feelings for the underdog, and read well the electorate’s mood. However, his decision to abolish the Kirk government’s compulsory superannuation scheme in 1975 was surely the single worst economic decision ever made in New Zealand.
Axing the Kirk scheme explains much about our subsequent low domestic savings rates, our capital shallowness, high real exchange rate, low productivity, and imbalances that favour the non-tradeable over the tradeable sector. These factors mean our innovative, knowledge-intensive businesses struggle to access the patient capital needed to become major international enterprises that are still retained in New Zealand.
The irony is that Labour, supported by the Greens, is now on the cusp of passing probably the worst legislation enacted in New Zealand since 1975 (or perhaps ever). If enacted, the Water Services EntitiesBill will effectively transfer control over New Zealand’s waters (including geothermal and coastal as well as freshwaters) to tribal interests. This will create at best a deadweight loss to the economy and at worse rent-seeking, ticket clipping and nepotism on a monumental scale.
Managing water assets, infrastructure and services requires hydrologists, geologists, engineers, trades people, microbiologists, financial managers and a host of other capabilities. Māori input is necessary and valuable. However, the Bill implies that tribal Māori alone have unique knowledge and expertise that can meet the key challenges in water management. It assumes that tribal leaders will act in the interests of all New Zealanders.
Rather than being configured around catchments, the Entities are based on loosely defined iwi boundaries that are historically and legally questionable and which do not reflect Māori demographics today, let alone those of New Zealanders as a whole.
How did we get to this point under a Labour Government? Social class politics evolved from the 1970s into today’s identity politics. The Parliamentary benches are now more diverse than ever before in gender, race, ethnicity, tribal, religious and other terms. They are not however diverse in social class. Most MPs are from the professional and management classes, are home owners with high incomes as well as high net worth. Few Labour MPs have built a business with all the travails this involves. Some have graduated from student political roles to jobs in or clustered around Parliament without ever having to make a product or deliver services that people in markets want to buy.
Up to the 1980s te Tiriti settlements involved reparations for historical injustices. However, especially since the 1987 Lands case, the focus has shifted to one of a supposed ‘partnership’ between Māori and the Crown. The Māori activist voice has moved from socio-economic concerns to wider identarian, political and constitutional ambitions.
The scope of te Tiriti issues has widened far beyond the intent of the signatories in 1840. “Presentism” involves interpreting te Tiriti as a modern rather than an 1840 document. For example, in 1840 ‘taonga’ meant tangible physical property such as a spear, a fishing net or a waka. It did not remotely mean, for example, language, intellectual and cultural ‘property’, broadcasting spectrum or water.
The 2019 He Puapua document proposed radical constitutional and other changes in New Zealand. Amongst many other initiatives it signaled a future intent for Māori to impose levies on water (as well as on other resources). He Puapua has set the scene for many Labour Government policy initiatives. The “Māori caucus” has been a driving force in support of this. Some MPs in this caucus may have forgotten their duty to act for all New Zealanders, not just a racially-defined subset. In future, some may be asked to “check their privilege…”
The Water Services Entities Bill has triggered rigorous scrutiny. Independent financial analyses have highlighted weaknesses in the government’s assumptions, the naivety of its debt financing proposals, and the failure to consider lower cost alternatives, including the more effective use of regulation – see Castalia: Five big problems with three waters.
The lack of effective governance structures and reporting mechanisms to ensure accountability will likely lead to performance failings and create fiscal risk. The Entities’ debts will ultimately become public liabilities. It is possible that the Water Services Entities will be a financial disaster of economy-wide significance.
While councils are nominally owners of the proposed Entities, legal opinions point out that councils have no conventional ownership rights. The Water Services Entities Bill expropriates councils’ water-related assets and transfers them to “co-governed” Water Services Entities. The real control over what happens with water will sit with a few tribal leaders. Te Mana o te Wai statements exclusively provided by iwi and hapu will cover all water use matters. These statements are binding on everyone exercising duties and functions under the Act.
The Water Services Entities process has been shambolic, dishonest and unprofessional. At one stage a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was submitted to entrench in law a provision in the Bill that would require 60% of votes to change or repeal. Strong criticism from constitutional lawyers and the Law Society saw the Labour government back off this proposal.
Dr Muriel Newman has documented The dishonesty, subterfuge and contempt for democracy in the Water Services Entities process. The select committee received over 88,000 submissions, most of which strongly opposed the Bill or key elements of it. However, the public consultation process gave no opportunity for input into such fundamental issues as the inclusion within the legislation of geothermal and coastal as well as freshwater resources. Consultation was token in that it was clear that the Bill was a fait accompli well before consultation was completed. Recruitment for key jobs in the new entities was underway before consultation was finished.
Dr Newman also asks questions about who is actually running the country, noting the Māori caucus influence and the evidence that at times key Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister herself have been blindsided by developments and lacked detailed understanding of the Bill’s ramifications.
Taken overall, the Bill gives tribes effective control of water in New Zealand. This has never been in the Labour Party’s election manifesto and New Zealanders have never voted for it. Enactment of the Water Services Entities Bill will besmirch New Zealand’s reputation as a democracy with quality institutions. However, it will teach the need for eternal vigilance to safeguard democracy. It may also force the Labour Party to reflect on what it stands for.
Dr Peter Winsley has worked in policy and economics-related fields in New Zealand for many years. With qualifications and publications in economics, management and literature. This article was first published HERE
The irony is that Labour, supported by the Greens, is now on the cusp of passing probably the worst legislation enacted in New Zealand since 1975 (or perhaps ever). If enacted, the Water Services EntitiesBill will effectively transfer control over New Zealand’s waters (including geothermal and coastal as well as freshwaters) to tribal interests. This will create at best a deadweight loss to the economy and at worse rent-seeking, ticket clipping and nepotism on a monumental scale.
Managing water assets, infrastructure and services requires hydrologists, geologists, engineers, trades people, microbiologists, financial managers and a host of other capabilities. Māori input is necessary and valuable. However, the Bill implies that tribal Māori alone have unique knowledge and expertise that can meet the key challenges in water management. It assumes that tribal leaders will act in the interests of all New Zealanders.
Rather than being configured around catchments, the Entities are based on loosely defined iwi boundaries that are historically and legally questionable and which do not reflect Māori demographics today, let alone those of New Zealanders as a whole.
How did we get to this point under a Labour Government? Social class politics evolved from the 1970s into today’s identity politics. The Parliamentary benches are now more diverse than ever before in gender, race, ethnicity, tribal, religious and other terms. They are not however diverse in social class. Most MPs are from the professional and management classes, are home owners with high incomes as well as high net worth. Few Labour MPs have built a business with all the travails this involves. Some have graduated from student political roles to jobs in or clustered around Parliament without ever having to make a product or deliver services that people in markets want to buy.
Up to the 1980s te Tiriti settlements involved reparations for historical injustices. However, especially since the 1987 Lands case, the focus has shifted to one of a supposed ‘partnership’ between Māori and the Crown. The Māori activist voice has moved from socio-economic concerns to wider identarian, political and constitutional ambitions.
The scope of te Tiriti issues has widened far beyond the intent of the signatories in 1840. “Presentism” involves interpreting te Tiriti as a modern rather than an 1840 document. For example, in 1840 ‘taonga’ meant tangible physical property such as a spear, a fishing net or a waka. It did not remotely mean, for example, language, intellectual and cultural ‘property’, broadcasting spectrum or water.
The 2019 He Puapua document proposed radical constitutional and other changes in New Zealand. Amongst many other initiatives it signaled a future intent for Māori to impose levies on water (as well as on other resources). He Puapua has set the scene for many Labour Government policy initiatives. The “Māori caucus” has been a driving force in support of this. Some MPs in this caucus may have forgotten their duty to act for all New Zealanders, not just a racially-defined subset. In future, some may be asked to “check their privilege…”
The Water Services Entities Bill has triggered rigorous scrutiny. Independent financial analyses have highlighted weaknesses in the government’s assumptions, the naivety of its debt financing proposals, and the failure to consider lower cost alternatives, including the more effective use of regulation – see Castalia: Five big problems with three waters.
The lack of effective governance structures and reporting mechanisms to ensure accountability will likely lead to performance failings and create fiscal risk. The Entities’ debts will ultimately become public liabilities. It is possible that the Water Services Entities will be a financial disaster of economy-wide significance.
While councils are nominally owners of the proposed Entities, legal opinions point out that councils have no conventional ownership rights. The Water Services Entities Bill expropriates councils’ water-related assets and transfers them to “co-governed” Water Services Entities. The real control over what happens with water will sit with a few tribal leaders. Te Mana o te Wai statements exclusively provided by iwi and hapu will cover all water use matters. These statements are binding on everyone exercising duties and functions under the Act.
The Water Services Entities process has been shambolic, dishonest and unprofessional. At one stage a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was submitted to entrench in law a provision in the Bill that would require 60% of votes to change or repeal. Strong criticism from constitutional lawyers and the Law Society saw the Labour government back off this proposal.
Dr Muriel Newman has documented The dishonesty, subterfuge and contempt for democracy in the Water Services Entities process. The select committee received over 88,000 submissions, most of which strongly opposed the Bill or key elements of it. However, the public consultation process gave no opportunity for input into such fundamental issues as the inclusion within the legislation of geothermal and coastal as well as freshwater resources. Consultation was token in that it was clear that the Bill was a fait accompli well before consultation was completed. Recruitment for key jobs in the new entities was underway before consultation was finished.
Dr Newman also asks questions about who is actually running the country, noting the Māori caucus influence and the evidence that at times key Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister herself have been blindsided by developments and lacked detailed understanding of the Bill’s ramifications.
Taken overall, the Bill gives tribes effective control of water in New Zealand. This has never been in the Labour Party’s election manifesto and New Zealanders have never voted for it. Enactment of the Water Services Entities Bill will besmirch New Zealand’s reputation as a democracy with quality institutions. However, it will teach the need for eternal vigilance to safeguard democracy. It may also force the Labour Party to reflect on what it stands for.
Dr Peter Winsley has worked in policy and economics-related fields in New Zealand for many years. With qualifications and publications in economics, management and literature. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
Sums it up as this is the worst legislation enacted in New Zealand ever.
But I totally disagree that Māori input is necessary. It may carry some value (and I say may) but it is not an absolute necessity. Do Maori magically have a spiritual connectivity to water that exists say in Switzerland, Brazil, Africa? That is a bizzare notion.
Maori have no more right/influence/control to water than any other human on the planet. Period.
What is so hard to bear, Peter is that you and many other intelligent, level-headed, scholarly people are making all this rational, researched information available to anyone who cares to read it, while all members of the Labour Government - leave aside tribal elders - must be strenuously averting their attention so as not to pollute the purity of their arrant stupidity. Never give up. Thank you.
The NZ Labour Party is now the puppet and mouthpiece of the Maori tribal elite and the whipping boy of the Labour Maori caucus. Ardern is the public talking head with no control over whatever the racist minority within the Party want to achieve for " their people ". The rest of the woke pale MPs are terrified of being labeled as racist so just sit in the corner nodding their heads and wringing their hands. Collectively they should be ashamed for betraying the majority of New Zealanders that they are supposed to represent. Kiwialan.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first comment - why is Māori input necessary and valuable. WHat gives Maori any greater expertise over water services than the rest of the community? Nothing!
One other aspect that I have not seen any comment on is the impact of the Te Mana o te Wai statements. The Bill is very clear that the WSEs must bow to the demands of the Iwi/Hapu issuing a statement. Yet nowhere is the issue of budgetary consideration discussed. I can only imagine the financial management difficulties a WSE will encounter when it is presented with Iwi demands for which it has not made bugetary provision, but which the Iwi insists must be attended to in the current financial year.
this is just the start this will only get worse all built on a fabrication,how something so simple as the tow, has been reinvented and now we have the spirit of the treaty the principles of the treaty and supposed partnership all to benefit one race until the treaty that was signed is adhered to this will never stop maori were granted all the rights and privileges of british subjects not MORE rights as they seem to think and don't get challenged on
Yes, too often comments like "Maori input is necessary and valuable" are stated to appease and/or signify virtue, but are really quite irrelevant. As others have commented, their input is no more relevant than the next persons, and if you're unqualified and without particular expertise, then that is evermore true. Three Waters is a rort pure and simple and the Labour Party must know it, or they are truly stupid and believe their own propaganda. Given what just happened over the 'entrenchment' issue, the latter is quite possibly more the truth. Either way, the whole thing is a shameless attack on our democracy and while Labour will certainly be out this coming election, the fact that they are still polling above 30-odd%, is an indictment of the prevailing ignorance and/or the comfort with the democratic corruption of our country.
Three Waters is debt financed. All that debt accumulated on top of other covid debt. Our population isn’t growing fast enough to pay it all off. The assumptions being made by the government and its advisors is rubbish.
Just look at the advice they got over closing the Refinery. Told not to do it but went ahead without thinking it through and now we have problems with dirty jet fuel and not enough storage.
Now before some clever clogs says the Government didn’t close the Refinery the oil companies did, I agree but the government didn’t put up much of a fight to keep it either.
An excellent and thought-provoking piece
Post a Comment