Hi Bernard. I love your theory about the real driver of 3W but I don't understand how politicians would do this secretly. Wouldn't they want voters to know? Labour dropped all the things they campaigned on but won't drop this vote losing initiative or even debate, discuss, or tweak it. Would they pay such a high cost to drive through s…
Hi Bernard. I love your theory about the real driver of 3W but I don't understand how politicians would do this secretly. Wouldn't they want voters to know? Labour dropped all the things they campaigned on but won't drop this vote losing initiative or even debate, discuss, or tweak it. Would they pay such a high cost to drive through something without people understanding why? Most people want funding for infrastructure sorted I think
Three Waters is beginning to make my eyes glaze over, just as the debate over who should pay for carbon dioxide and methane emissions does. But this is how I see it:
1. We all want a reliable clean drinkable water supply, and sewerage and stormwater drains that work. This is going to cost billions.
2. I don't think anyone envisages trying to make a bankable profit out of any of the three waters, either supplying water or taking it away. The concept of Māori ownership is meaningless in the sense of reaping financial dividends: the wider community wouldn't stand for it.
3. So ownership seems to come down to (a) who pays and (b) who can borrow against the assets. As for who pays, a 2020 Fonseka Newsroom story said 14 out of 41 council and water bodies were metered; since then New Plymouth has been added. I think user-pays water metering for urban areas will be rolled out over the whole country fairly smartly, and farms will eventually be user-pays too. (See https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/mining-energy-water/water/metering)
Bernard has written much about the need for any new structure to be able to borrow the billions needed to restore, expand, and run the infrastructure for all Three Waters. That's what ownership is all about. As long as the infrastructure doesn't pass into foreign, or private, hands, nobody is being robbed, regardless of whether there are four entities, 15, or just one for the whole country.
4. I think the issue of co-governance is a red herring for some and a red rag for others. It's points 1, 2, and 3 that need to be sorted out. I don't see a problem with mana whenua being able to express some degree of kaitiakitanga (co-governance, not co-government) over water resource and wastewater discharge in their rohe, but manners and respect will be needed by all parties for that to succeed.
Three Waters as proposed by the Government is dead. It now must listen to mayors, councils, and a rebellious citizenry, and adopt a Three Waters regime that will survive the 2023 election. Otherwise more years and much money will have been wasted.
I find Bernard overly cynical to imagine homeowners are out there conspiring to raise home prices by denying infrastructure to the nation (which includes themselves).
Thanks Duane. I wish I could see better motivations behind the repeated election results and mountains of rhetoric from politicians that I've listened to over the last 20 years. I agree it's not as conscious as I suggest. But it's certainly unconscious. Our political lizard brains at work. When a system works for you personally, it's easy to say no when someone says any change would be bad, even when the argument is the change would be good for everyone. Sadly, when people draw the curtain in the voting booth, it all becomes very 'them' and 'us' and zero-sum-game.
Great comment John. Interesting case study from the UK where Severn Water agreed a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) agreement with upland farmers to establish measures to reduce run-off, sedimentation and pollution in their common watershed. These measures helped reduce the company (read council/government) asset management/capital renewal costs, whilst at the same time providing a steady source of passive income for farmers to reduce stock levels or compensate for reduced crop yields.
Thanks JP F. I think a lot of people say they want infrastructure sorted, but they also say they want lower taxes. A lot of voters think magically, in large part because they've been encouraged to do so by a generation of politicians and bureaucrats who still believe we have a flat (ish) population and starving Government is (of course) a good thing.
sorry - I think I was unsure that if you were suggesting that the project was designed by the politicians to fix infrastructure in a way that avoids the 30-30 restriction, why they would push past the criticism without explaining that bit to voters. It didn't seem believable that any politician in NZ would think long term like that ie; to take all this heat just to separate the balance sheets so they could borrow against it. I see now that you are saying that they were not clear because they needed to avoid the 30-30 thing
Hi Bernard. I love your theory about the real driver of 3W but I don't understand how politicians would do this secretly. Wouldn't they want voters to know? Labour dropped all the things they campaigned on but won't drop this vote losing initiative or even debate, discuss, or tweak it. Would they pay such a high cost to drive through something without people understanding why? Most people want funding for infrastructure sorted I think
Three Waters is beginning to make my eyes glaze over, just as the debate over who should pay for carbon dioxide and methane emissions does. But this is how I see it:
1. We all want a reliable clean drinkable water supply, and sewerage and stormwater drains that work. This is going to cost billions.
2. I don't think anyone envisages trying to make a bankable profit out of any of the three waters, either supplying water or taking it away. The concept of Māori ownership is meaningless in the sense of reaping financial dividends: the wider community wouldn't stand for it.
3. So ownership seems to come down to (a) who pays and (b) who can borrow against the assets. As for who pays, a 2020 Fonseka Newsroom story said 14 out of 41 council and water bodies were metered; since then New Plymouth has been added. I think user-pays water metering for urban areas will be rolled out over the whole country fairly smartly, and farms will eventually be user-pays too. (See https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/mining-energy-water/water/metering)
Bernard has written much about the need for any new structure to be able to borrow the billions needed to restore, expand, and run the infrastructure for all Three Waters. That's what ownership is all about. As long as the infrastructure doesn't pass into foreign, or private, hands, nobody is being robbed, regardless of whether there are four entities, 15, or just one for the whole country.
4. I think the issue of co-governance is a red herring for some and a red rag for others. It's points 1, 2, and 3 that need to be sorted out. I don't see a problem with mana whenua being able to express some degree of kaitiakitanga (co-governance, not co-government) over water resource and wastewater discharge in their rohe, but manners and respect will be needed by all parties for that to succeed.
Three Waters as proposed by the Government is dead. It now must listen to mayors, councils, and a rebellious citizenry, and adopt a Three Waters regime that will survive the 2023 election. Otherwise more years and much money will have been wasted.
What a sensible comment John.
I find Bernard overly cynical to imagine homeowners are out there conspiring to raise home prices by denying infrastructure to the nation (which includes themselves).
Thanks Duane. I wish I could see better motivations behind the repeated election results and mountains of rhetoric from politicians that I've listened to over the last 20 years. I agree it's not as conscious as I suggest. But it's certainly unconscious. Our political lizard brains at work. When a system works for you personally, it's easy to say no when someone says any change would be bad, even when the argument is the change would be good for everyone. Sadly, when people draw the curtain in the voting booth, it all becomes very 'them' and 'us' and zero-sum-game.
Thanks John for that analysis. Plenty deep and sharp. Much appreciated.
Great comment John. Interesting case study from the UK where Severn Water agreed a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) agreement with upland farmers to establish measures to reduce run-off, sedimentation and pollution in their common watershed. These measures helped reduce the company (read council/government) asset management/capital renewal costs, whilst at the same time providing a steady source of passive income for farmers to reduce stock levels or compensate for reduced crop yields.
Thanks JP F. I think a lot of people say they want infrastructure sorted, but they also say they want lower taxes. A lot of voters think magically, in large part because they've been encouraged to do so by a generation of politicians and bureaucrats who still believe we have a flat (ish) population and starving Government is (of course) a good thing.
sorry - I think I was unsure that if you were suggesting that the project was designed by the politicians to fix infrastructure in a way that avoids the 30-30 restriction, why they would push past the criticism without explaining that bit to voters. It didn't seem believable that any politician in NZ would think long term like that ie; to take all this heat just to separate the balance sheets so they could borrow against it. I see now that you are saying that they were not clear because they needed to avoid the 30-30 thing