National's Bishop wants councils who won't invest to move their assets off their balance sheets into Three Waters-style entities; National and Labour still believe in infrastructure magic
Chris Bishop is rapidly shaping up to be the ghastliest ghoul in the gang of ghouls. He seems to have studied the US-Right's 'controversy is fleeting' playbook and now just sprays idiocy from the hip, happy in the knowledge that our mainstream media will start to report it but then get distracted by a cute kitten or something.
So, with that, I don't think we can trust the first thing he says... All we should confidently take away from Bishop's riffing is this new government actually still don't have the first idea how they are going to deal with our water problems!
This is what saddens me so much about the racist dog-whistlting over "co-governance". So many who screamed blue murder about it will be lamenting the over-priced privatised system that will evolve if NACT ghouls get their way.
Was the report to Cabinet on carbon credit costs before tge release of PREFU? If so! then Treasury have been absolutely derelict in not reporting it accurately as a contingent liability.
"Yes - Three waters is Hollywood level creative accounting solution to the overall problem of decades worth of under funding public infrastructure by shuffling around ownership of council owned assets to an organisation that can use them to as collateral for structured loans (+*).
The silly thing is that in theory it is actually a potential solution that in the medium term (decade ), would cost the tax payers the least. Which is why in this current centrist political climate it is probably the only type of action that will be taken.
My only major complaint with it is the split into separate "local" regions - a mistake that Labour is finally undoing with the DHB health system.
(+*) Never mind the fact that effectively it is only the land that the water treatment are sitting on that is usable as collateral with the water treatment plant removed, the plant itself being a sunk cost, since no centrist government in its right mind is going to raise user charges to actually cover the loans."
"The vast majority of NZers DO NOT want to have broken pipes, sewage flowing in the street, undrinkable town water supply, increased stream and river water pollution, disproportionally huge rates bills.
Almost all of NZers DO NOT want any and all solutions to all of the former problems forever kicked down the road by political do-nothing numb-nuts who are mostly elderly enough to prefer to be well in their graves before any solution is actually implemented."
Good on you Bernard for calling out frankly the bullsh*t about how our politicians and regulators operate. Latest case and point on the supermarket duopoly. Again what a waste of time Labour were in the last term. Also someone needs to tell Willis the election is over and that she needs to offer much more than pointless soundbites...bodes well for the next 3 years huh.
Brilliant as usual Bernard. Release please. Just shows thems that have keeps and the rest can go to hell or foodbanks. The Bald headed boardroom bandit wont solve it as he just supports the rich P..cks! The sicles are coming.
Emissions liability is incredibly worrying. The current EU carbon price today is NZ$181. I don't think $234/tonne by 2030 is at all realistic. What if it's $500/tonne? Given that no-one is decarbonising fast enough, there will be a mad scramble for units. No hip replacements for the boomers, sorry!
Wow, that was an epic read! Thanks Bernard. Makes my head spin, and not in a good way! I realise your population forecasts are what's happening anyway at the moment, I would be genuinely interested to know what most people see as the ideal population for Aotearoa, given we can't take care of our people or places adequately now and that will only get more challenging with climate change.
Hmmm, I'm not sure I know! Probably less than 1-2% a year I think. Maybe 1% at most. I would probably prefer higher taxes and slower population growth, with a genuine focus on conserving our natural resources and acting on climate change that is non-partisan (I like to think such a thing is possible!)
I agree that NZ will likely increasingly be seen as a climate haven, but I'm not sure what the appetite here will be for mass migration on that sort of scale - would there be a backlash against it? How would we as a country maintain social cohesion with such a massive demographic change with climate havoc playing out in the background? So much to ponder. That's why I'm grateful for your work!
Great read, Bernard. Found myself frequently nodding in agreement - some times the analysis, some times your blunt and frank commentary! You're doing good work, thanks.
That emissions liability needs addressing
Chris Bishop is rapidly shaping up to be the ghastliest ghoul in the gang of ghouls. He seems to have studied the US-Right's 'controversy is fleeting' playbook and now just sprays idiocy from the hip, happy in the knowledge that our mainstream media will start to report it but then get distracted by a cute kitten or something.
So, with that, I don't think we can trust the first thing he says... All we should confidently take away from Bishop's riffing is this new government actually still don't have the first idea how they are going to deal with our water problems!
Bishop was a tobacco lobbyist, so open mouth, rubbish pours out!
Why isn’t the emissions liability on the govt books? Where is this liability recorded? Or is someone going to claim it’s all a huge surprise in 2030?
Is the Review of local government dead in the water? I am hoping it is not. So much deep consultation. Such a waste to just let it lie
After these... " In 2005 a review of local government funding
conducted by a joint officials’ committee, made up of local and central government staff (following a
request from the Central Local Government Forum), highlighted major sustainability issues for certain
types of councils. This was followed two years later by the Local Government Rates Inquiry. Its report,
known as the Shand Report, after its Chair David Shand, made more than 90 recommendations for change,
few of which few were ever actioned. This was followed in due course by the LGNZ Local Government
Funding Review, https://www.lgnz.co.nz/our-work/local-government-funding-review/ which also called for
substantial change.
Three years later the new Labour–led Coalition, while actioning a commitment made in the coalition
agreement, asked the Productivity Commission to also conduct a review into local government funding
and financing.1 “Hold a Public Inquiry (A Decade after Shand) to investigate the drivers of local government
and its revenue base” (Labour/NZ First Coalition Agreement).
The Commission was asked to find out what is driving the cost of local government services and advise on
whether the current funding and financing arrangements are adequate and efficient. In addition, the
Government wanted to know what options and approaches would improve those arrangements. The
Commission was not given an open-ended brief, excluded from the terms of reference were:
• Rating of Crown land;
• Rating of Māori freehold land;
• The valuation system and practice;
• Substantial privatisation; and
• Changes to local government boundaries.
The Commission received its brief in July 2018 and published an issues paper in November of that year
with a draft report published in July 2019. In response to the draft report, 270 submissions were received
and a final report, which differed noticeably from the draft in some areas, was published in November
2019. The Report can be accessed at https://www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiries/local-governmentfunding-and-financing/ "
What a waste what is the point of no action on them all
So Three Waters minus co-governance still pretty much equals Three Waters?
How long before NACT conclude the only 2 waters solution is privatisation?
This is what saddens me so much about the racist dog-whistlting over "co-governance". So many who screamed blue murder about it will be lamenting the over-priced privatised system that will evolve if NACT ghouls get their way.
NO!!!!!!
And we've seen how privatising water has worked out in the UK....pooh in the - you guessed it - ocean!
Was the report to Cabinet on carbon credit costs before tge release of PREFU? If so! then Treasury have been absolutely derelict in not reporting it accurately as a contingent liability.
Appendix II came out five days before the PREFU. Derelict is one word for it.
Love note 1. Very droll
Did anyone else think the Impossible Trinity was going to be National, Act, and NZ First
Funny...
Jul 21, 2022
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/thursdays-chorus-building-inflation/comments#comment-7867245
"Yes - Three waters is Hollywood level creative accounting solution to the overall problem of decades worth of under funding public infrastructure by shuffling around ownership of council owned assets to an organisation that can use them to as collateral for structured loans (+*).
The silly thing is that in theory it is actually a potential solution that in the medium term (decade ), would cost the tax payers the least. Which is why in this current centrist political climate it is probably the only type of action that will be taken.
My only major complaint with it is the split into separate "local" regions - a mistake that Labour is finally undoing with the DHB health system.
(+*) Never mind the fact that effectively it is only the land that the water treatment are sitting on that is usable as collateral with the water treatment plant removed, the plant itself being a sunk cost, since no centrist government in its right mind is going to raise user charges to actually cover the loans."
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/thursdays-chorus-building-inflation/comments#comment-7871418
"The vast majority of NZers DO NOT want to have broken pipes, sewage flowing in the street, undrinkable town water supply, increased stream and river water pollution, disproportionally huge rates bills.
Almost all of NZers DO NOT want any and all solutions to all of the former problems forever kicked down the road by political do-nothing numb-nuts who are mostly elderly enough to prefer to be well in their graves before any solution is actually implemented."
Good on you Bernard for calling out frankly the bullsh*t about how our politicians and regulators operate. Latest case and point on the supermarket duopoly. Again what a waste of time Labour were in the last term. Also someone needs to tell Willis the election is over and that she needs to offer much more than pointless soundbites...bodes well for the next 3 years huh.
Brilliant as usual Bernard. Release please. Just shows thems that have keeps and the rest can go to hell or foodbanks. The Bald headed boardroom bandit wont solve it as he just supports the rich P..cks! The sicles are coming.
Patrick Medlicott
“those interests operate a series of revolving doors to employ and contract politicians, political operatives and bureaucrats”
When will we say the C word out loud? CORRUPTION
Emissions liability is incredibly worrying. The current EU carbon price today is NZ$181. I don't think $234/tonne by 2030 is at all realistic. What if it's $500/tonne? Given that no-one is decarbonising fast enough, there will be a mad scramble for units. No hip replacements for the boomers, sorry!
Wow, that was an epic read! Thanks Bernard. Makes my head spin, and not in a good way! I realise your population forecasts are what's happening anyway at the moment, I would be genuinely interested to know what most people see as the ideal population for Aotearoa, given we can't take care of our people or places adequately now and that will only get more challenging with climate change.
What sort of population growth would you like to see?
Hmmm, I'm not sure I know! Probably less than 1-2% a year I think. Maybe 1% at most. I would probably prefer higher taxes and slower population growth, with a genuine focus on conserving our natural resources and acting on climate change that is non-partisan (I like to think such a thing is possible!)
I agree that NZ will likely increasingly be seen as a climate haven, but I'm not sure what the appetite here will be for mass migration on that sort of scale - would there be a backlash against it? How would we as a country maintain social cohesion with such a massive demographic change with climate havoc playing out in the background? So much to ponder. That's why I'm grateful for your work!
Great read, Bernard. Found myself frequently nodding in agreement - some times the analysis, some times your blunt and frank commentary! You're doing good work, thanks.
Can we share it?