The result - a subscale entity, too small to deliver real efficiencies but big enough to add cost and distance from accountability. The worst of both worlds.
Generations paid for this infrastructure, now it’s being handed to a new organisation the public didn’t vote for, didn’t want, has no say in its operation, yet will still be expected to fund.
Likely the smallest CCO in the country - 28000 connections - it still needs a "high powered" board, Chairman , Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to function. Not content with saddling the community with the most expensive option they now want to rub salt into the wound by appointing a Chair person skilled in the mythical art of tikanga and treaty principles!
A recent advertisement for the "Chair" makes one wonder whether they are recruiting for a water utility or the Ministry of Cultural Transformation.
The Chair of the new water CCO is expected to strengthen Treaty principles, embed tikanga in governance, enhance Māori self-determination, ensure equity in outcomes, build enduring partnerships with mana whenua, recognise water as a taonga, and create pathways for iwi input into decision-making.
Buried in the job description for the new water CCO are these extraordinary requirements:
The successful applicant must embed Treaty principles in governance decisions, uphold tikanga Māori, recognise water as a taonga, create pathways for iwi input into decision-making, and build enduring relationships with mana whenua and papatipu rūnaka.
Ensure the organisational strategy enhance Māori self-determination (rangatiratanga) and foster genuine partnerships with Iwi/Māori, ensuring equity in outcomes.
Read that again - the Chair of a publicly owned water company is expected to "enhance Māori self-determination"!
How will any of these "attributes" enhance water delivery especially after decades of successful management without them! Since when did advancing the political aspirations of any particular group become a core function of a water utility?
Ratepayers were sold this CCO on the basis of efficiency, scale, expertise and compliance. Instead, the job description reads like the manifesto of a government department searching for a cultural transformation leader.
But not to worry:
Many ratepayers believed the era of Treaty-based water governance ended when Labour's Three Waters reforms were abandoned. Yet the Chair's job description suggests many of the same concepts have quietly reappeared through a different door. While this "new structure" doesn't mirror the original exactly, assets have been placed beyond ratepayer control under a board where a major focus seems to be cultural rather than water related.
Ratepayers were promised efficiency and cost savings, what they are getting is expensive bureaucracy, now wrapped in a cultural package, with many of the original operational functions remaining exactly where they were before. If this is what "water reform" entails, perhaps ratepayers were never the intended audience in the first place.
The job description doesn't openly say “we want a Māori Chair” - of course it wouldn't - that would be far too obvious. Instead it loads the role with requirements around tikanga, mana whenua, papatipu rūnaka, rangatiratanga, Treaty principles, Māori self-determination, and water as taonga.
Technically, anyone can apply but practically, the message is unmistakable.
Specifically:
"commitment to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi"
Councils are not parties to the Treaty of Waitangi, and ordinary council employees do not owe personal obligations under it.
The Treaty itself contains no written “principles”; they are evolving political interpretations and remain contentious.
They do not appear in the text of the Treaty itself and have largely emerged from, Waitangi tribunal reports and "vague" , court decisions.
Most reasonable people would dispute their existence.
"Understands Tikanga" - Tikanga is a fluid concept which varies between iwi, location, history and interpretation and apparently can’t always be consistently defined even by its own experts. It is difficult to see how adherence to such an evolving concept can be objectively assessed in a public sector recruitment process."
Water as a "taonga" - that is an evolving concept, water was never regarded as a "taonga" , its original meaning was. as many of the early dictionaries state "was property procured by the spear", it grew to be valuables and possessions, but never water. Water as a "taonga" is a radical view and not supported by the historical view or later dictionaries - it is not the Council's job to foster this view - the use of this by Council is reckless and cause for concern.
Traditionally, councils employed people based on:
The question ratepayers must ask is whether the organisation was created to deliver better water services, or to deliver a governance model they were never consulted on and never voted for.
Graeme Spencer is a staunch New Zealander who believes in racial equality and one law for all.
Likely the smallest CCO in the country - 28000 connections - it still needs a "high powered" board, Chairman , Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to function. Not content with saddling the community with the most expensive option they now want to rub salt into the wound by appointing a Chair person skilled in the mythical art of tikanga and treaty principles!
A recent advertisement for the "Chair" makes one wonder whether they are recruiting for a water utility or the Ministry of Cultural Transformation.
The Chair of the new water CCO is expected to strengthen Treaty principles, embed tikanga in governance, enhance Māori self-determination, ensure equity in outcomes, build enduring partnerships with mana whenua, recognise water as a taonga, and create pathways for iwi input into decision-making.
Buried in the job description for the new water CCO are these extraordinary requirements:
- Understands tikanga, Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations and te ao Māori perspectives on water as a taonga.
- Ensures board-level decision-making and behaviours reflect tikanga Māori, uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, and support respectful, enduring partnerships with mana whenua.
- Understands relevant statutory context, including the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 (which provides for the settlement of historical Treaty claims and ongoing statutory recognition of Ngāi Tahu rights and relationships), in governance and engagement with mana whenua / Ngāi Tahu rūnaka.
The successful applicant must embed Treaty principles in governance decisions, uphold tikanga Māori, recognise water as a taonga, create pathways for iwi input into decision-making, and build enduring relationships with mana whenua and papatipu rūnaka.
Ensure the organisational strategy enhance Māori self-determination (rangatiratanga) and foster genuine partnerships with Iwi/Māori, ensuring equity in outcomes.
Read that again - the Chair of a publicly owned water company is expected to "enhance Māori self-determination"!
How will any of these "attributes" enhance water delivery especially after decades of successful management without them! Since when did advancing the political aspirations of any particular group become a core function of a water utility?
Ratepayers were sold this CCO on the basis of efficiency, scale, expertise and compliance. Instead, the job description reads like the manifesto of a government department searching for a cultural transformation leader.
But not to worry:
- The Chair must understand water as a taonga.
- The Chair must uphold Treaty principles.
- The Chair must strengthen partnerships with mana whenua.
- The Chair must help enhance rangatiratanga.
- The Chair must embed tikanga into governance decisions.
Many ratepayers believed the era of Treaty-based water governance ended when Labour's Three Waters reforms were abandoned. Yet the Chair's job description suggests many of the same concepts have quietly reappeared through a different door. While this "new structure" doesn't mirror the original exactly, assets have been placed beyond ratepayer control under a board where a major focus seems to be cultural rather than water related.
Ratepayers were promised efficiency and cost savings, what they are getting is expensive bureaucracy, now wrapped in a cultural package, with many of the original operational functions remaining exactly where they were before. If this is what "water reform" entails, perhaps ratepayers were never the intended audience in the first place.
The job description doesn't openly say “we want a Māori Chair” - of course it wouldn't - that would be far too obvious. Instead it loads the role with requirements around tikanga, mana whenua, papatipu rūnaka, rangatiratanga, Treaty principles, Māori self-determination, and water as taonga.
Technically, anyone can apply but practically, the message is unmistakable.
Specifically:
"commitment to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi"
Councils are not parties to the Treaty of Waitangi, and ordinary council employees do not owe personal obligations under it.
The Treaty itself contains no written “principles”; they are evolving political interpretations and remain contentious.
They do not appear in the text of the Treaty itself and have largely emerged from, Waitangi tribunal reports and "vague" , court decisions.
Most reasonable people would dispute their existence.
"Understands Tikanga" - Tikanga is a fluid concept which varies between iwi, location, history and interpretation and apparently can’t always be consistently defined even by its own experts. It is difficult to see how adherence to such an evolving concept can be objectively assessed in a public sector recruitment process."
Water as a "taonga" - that is an evolving concept, water was never regarded as a "taonga" , its original meaning was. as many of the early dictionaries state "was property procured by the spear", it grew to be valuables and possessions, but never water. Water as a "taonga" is a radical view and not supported by the historical view or later dictionaries - it is not the Council's job to foster this view - the use of this by Council is reckless and cause for concern.
Traditionally, councils employed people based on:
- - competence,
- technical skill,
- integrity,
- experience,
- and ability to serve the public impartially
The question ratepayers must ask is whether the organisation was created to deliver better water services, or to deliver a governance model they were never consulted on and never voted for.
Graeme Spencer is a staunch New Zealander who believes in racial equality and one law for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.