NewstalkZB reports:

A Northland businessman says the region’s seeing booking cancellations due to checkpoints.

Police will keep Northland’s borders in place with iwi support when Auckland’s border opens.

In November the Government changed Covid laws to grant iwi organisations power to close roads and public places to stop vehicles.

This is a massive policy decision. The Government has decided that Iwi now have the legislated authority to close down an entire region, and ban travel to it. They have said that Iwi can decide whether or not businesses dependent on tourism can survive or not.

And this law change was rushed through Parliament with limited ability for the public to have their say.

Northland businesses should be very angry.

The international media have picked up the story of how the Royal Society of NZ has launched a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition. Toby Young writes in The Spectator:

But the moment this letter was published all hell broke loose. The views of the authors, who were all professors at Auckland, were denounced by the Royal Society, the New Zealand Association of Scientists, and the Tertiary Education Union, as well as by their own vice-chancellor, Dawn Freshwater. In a hand-wringing, cry-bullying email to all staff at the university, she said the letter had ‘caused considerable hurt and dismay among our staff, students and alumni’ and said it pointed to ‘major problems with some of our colleagues’.

Two of Professor Cooper’s academic colleagues, Dr Siouxsie Wiles and Dr Shaun Hendy, issued an ‘open letter’ condemning the heretics for causing ‘untold harm and hurt’. They invited anyone who agreed with them to add their names to the ‘open letter’, and more than 2,000 academics duly obliged. Before long, five members of the Royal Society had complained and a panel was set up to investigate.

The witch-finders disregarded several principles of natural justice in their prosecutorial zeal. For instance, two members of the three-person panel turned out to be signatories of the ‘open letter’ denouncing Professor Cooper so had to be replaced.

Witch-finders is a good name for them. And what does it say about the Royal Society that the majority of the panel they appointed were people who had already publicly decried the letter authors.

It’s not too late to save the professor. Letters from members of our own Royal Society, or any distinguished academics in the sciences and humanities, pointing out the absurdity of punishing a scientist for engaging in debate about the validity of science will help. You can email Roger Ridley, the chief executive. Remember, the only thing necessary for the triumph of intellectual intolerance is for believers in free speech to do nothing.

I understand a number of well known global scientists have indeed e-mailed in.

A guest post by Owen Jennings:

One of the many undertakings arising from the COP26 discussions is the target of “net zero emissions”.  Minister James Shaw was quoted in the Herald (5.12.21) as wanting “net zero emissions for farmers in New Zealand”.

Well, Minister, you have your want.  NZ farmers have already achieved net zero emissions.  It’s done and dusted.  It is big news.  It should be all over our media………..

New Zealand Farmers Hit Net Zero Emissions ahead of Target Date

But……….  It doesn’t fit the narrative.  Its not about robust science. We cant have facts getting the way of the “fear porn” and the “conversation” we are having about farmers being polluters.  It would get in the way of the “ban meat and milk” meme.

Net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken away. Pretty obvious?  Of course.

This is the test according the Minister Shaw. If an emission causes the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas to increase it is causing global warming and is not at net zero. If the emission does not cause any atmospheric greenhouse gas to increase it is not causing global warming and is at net zero.

Farmers, through their stock put ruminant methane into the atmosphere.  Most of that methane is oxidised and gone inside 12 years.  It is a short lived gas compared to CO2 which apparently has a much longer life.  The difference in longevity is why the “split gas” approach has been widely adopted.  Comparing methane and CO2 is “apples and onions”.

The emissions of ruminant methane in NZ have been relatively stable for 50 years or more and declining steadily since 2005.  Here is how the Climate Change Commission saw it.  The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment fully agrees.

That’s very clear.  No additional methane entering the atmosphere, even a slight, steady reduction.  There is slightly more going out than as is entering the atmosphere.  In schoolkid language if there are 100 people entering a room and 102 leaving the room there are fewer in the room. Hardly complicated maths.  By any definition farmers are achieving NET zero emissions.

But wait, there’s more!!

For Betsy to belch a molecule of methane she had to chew through a heap of grass.  Remember that 3^rd form science stuff about photosynthesis?  That grass comes from CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere.  Farmers remove heaps of CO2 every day.  They can’t produce one lot of what we stupidly label “carbon” – CO2 – without removing an equivalent amount.  Call it “zero, net zero emissions”.

Here is a bit or irony.  We pay overseas investors handsomely in taxpayer’s cash to buy our land, kick the animals off, run down local communities and plant trees so they can offset their CO2 emissions.   But farmers who offset their carbon emissions get taxed.  What sort of world is that?

Farmers have been around long enough to know that net zero emissions is more a political game than a scientifically based reality.  When senior UN officials say it’s less about the environment and more about getting rid of capitalism farmers know they need to play their political cards.  They know there are countries dying to find an excuse to put tariffs on our goods if we don’t join the ‘reduce emissions’ game.  That’s why they are spending literally millions breeding stock with fewer methane belches, creating seaweed additives to limit methane emissions and researching new grasses that help.  Afterall it will be technology, not taxes, that fixes this “problem”.

The right to protest does not extend to preventing other people from going about their legal business.

If the morons who make up Extinction Rebellion think they help their cause by blocking a passenger train, well that tells you a lot about them.

But regardless, the moment they started blocking the train, the Police should have arrested them and removed them.

A guest post by Dr Sean Devine:

A major driver of societal discord is the clash between one-dimensional thinking and holistic thinking or, what is technically called “Systems Thinking”. As a knowledge seeking discipline, holistic systems thinking is found in the ecological sciences, in physics with the law of conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics, and in the systems approach to the managing complex organisations.

These approaches recognise that the simple one-dimensional thinking, often termed reductionism, is unable to effectively deal with most of the complex problems we face today. Lifting the minimum wage is an example of a one-dimensional approach to inequality. When the economy does not have the capacity to respond, lifting minimum wages leads to inflation and/or unemployment, particularly affecting Maori, and school leavers.  From a holistic perspective the major cause of inequality is housing, not income.  If, as is currently the case, housing costs far outstrip wage increases, destructive inequality is inevitable. 

The economy is a complex system. As system gurus point out “Fiddling with a complex system usually makes things worse”.  Rather than fiddling in ignorance, the principle behind the Hippocratic oath is better.  Just as doctors are obliged; “First do no harm” so too for all complex systems. Ban all fossil fuel by 2028, as some one-dimensional thinkers advocate, and billions will die, because our food supply is energy dependent. This principle applies, not to just the economy, but the environment, and the complex societal issues we face.

Mitigating human induced global warming is a systems problem. But, the response of the activists and the media is one-dimensional, forever focusing on the calamities that await us, but not the need to understand; “What it is we can do?”.   Because of the failure of the opinion makers, the climate sceptics, with good reason, can claim that it is just politics and power, and has no substance.

Where the dominant climate narrative mainly ignores the human socio-economic system, it becomes a narrative of power and control, rather than direction and hope. Societal division inevitably follows.

In other words, much of the conversation on global warming is show-pony stuff that, in terms of what can be done, has no substance.  Without engaging with the draught horses of the economy, so to speak, those who carry the burden of change, the show-pony performance may feel good but because it alienates, it destroys.

Let me give an example, the NZ Religious Leaders recently published a statement advocating that Government should have more strict Greenhouse targets.  See,

Statement for Presentation at COP26 – The Religious Diversity Centre in Aotearoa New Zealand Trust (rdc.org.nz)

It is show-pony stuff, full of one-dimensional righteous statements that, by focusing on raising targets, not on actually doing anything, is a power claim.   It claims to represent diversity, but it failed to engage with the great unwashed, the draught horses of the economy that in the end will be the ones who carry the burden of societal change.  It is the moral equivalent of raising skill requirements for employment to kick the unemployed out of their assumed apathy.

I find it difficult to believe, that the religious leaders are so isolated, that they do not even acknowledge the essential part of our society that feeds, clothes and houses us. Their position sees Global Warming as just a management problem and, because of moral superiority, they see no need to engage with those who they believe to be the cause of it all.

These views are so divisive, that, as a Christian, I am obliged to ask forgiveness of you who have been ignored, and you who are being misled by blame, judgement, and ignorance expressed by those Christians amongst these leaders.

But there are holistic ways of dealing with societal issues.  Dr Mark Carney, one time Governor of the Reserve Bank of Canada and then of the Bank of England, and now an advisor to COP 26, presented the Reith lectures of December 2020. He argues from a holistic perspective, that our economic system needs to be underpinned by values to better align with societal and environmental needs.   His honest take on global warming recognises that the capability to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 does not yet exist.  It is not a management problem, but one which will rely on innovation, investment and technological change within an overarching values system that determines priorities.  See,

BBC Radio 4 – The Reith Lectures, Mark Carney – How We Get What We Value

Another more optimistic approach. consistent with Carney, is that of RethinkX.  This shows that. with a clear understanding of economic issues, we can achieve a great deal by 2035. See,

Climate Implications — RethinkX

These economic perspectives need to be part of our DNA, rather than the show-pony stuff.  Unless we grasp the need for holistic thinking that engages with all of society, with a wide understanding of how to go forward, division and chaos awaits us.

The November 2021 Roy Morgan is out.

Party Vote

• Labour 36.0% (-3.5% from October)
• National 26.5% (+0.5%)
• Greens 10.5% (nc)
• ACT 17.5% (+1.5%)
• Maori 3.0% (+1.0%)
• NZ First 2.5% (nc)

Seats

• Labour 46 (-19 from election)
• National 34 (+1)
• Greens 14 (+4)
• ACT 22 (+12)
• Maori 4 (+2)

Governments

• Labour/Green 60/120
• National/ACT 56/120

Direction

• Right 46.0% (-2.0%)
• Wrong 44.5% (+6.0%)

This is the first poll since the 2020 election that doesn’t have Labour and Greens able to form a Government. They would need the support of the Maori Party to govern.

The net country direction is on the verge of going negative which is a huge change from the beginning of 2021 when it was a massive +54%.

The gap between the CL and CR varies by gender and age. The gap is:

• All voters +2.5%
• Women +17.5%
• Men -13%
• Women under 50 +32%
• Women over 50 +0%
• Men under 50 -12.5%
• Men over 50 -13.5%

So the CR has large leads with both young and older men. With women, older women are not split equally between Lab/Gre and Nat/ACT while younger women go massively for Lab/Gre – which is what is keeping them competitive.

Note that this poll was conducted before the election of the new National leader.

A guest post by Mikenmild:

The recent post on ‘Taxpayer funded gang violence’ reminded me that Kiwibloggers might appreciate a little bit of background on politicians and gangs.

Gangs have been the subject of public concern and political attention since, well, forever. Gangs of disaffected youths were causing concern in Auckland in the 1800s. Perhaps we could look more closely at gangs in the modern era and, more specifically, how our politicians have related to New  Zealand’s two most prominent gangs.

Political reaction to, but also engagement with, gangs has been steady since the 1970s. Politicians have always been concerned about criminal gangs, particularly those that seem to represent a challenge to current social structures. The 1970s were a difficult time, as New Zealand society began to change rapidly while politicians faced economic problems for which no easy solutions appeared. The problem of gangs received new attention.

During the 1972 election campaign, Labour Leader Norman Kirk and his deputy, Hugh Watt, both promised to ‘take the bikes off the gangs’. No such thing happened, Kirk commenting that ‘it was not as easy as I thought’.

Critical of Labour’s lack of resolve, the 1975 National government soon had an opportunity to flex its muscles. In early 1976 a Mongrel Mob member was shot and killed after he and others attacked a police station in Taumarunui. Swift law changes targeted using a car in commission of a crime, tried to disrupt gang meetings that could lead to violence, and expanded police powers to stop and search. There is little evidence that these law changes hampered gang activity in any way.

So began a cycle of attempts to crack down on the gangs. This cycle has been periodically interrupted by attempts to address gangs as a social, rather than criminal, issue. During the 1980s, the government addressed the issue with work schemes intended to address the employment and social problems that underlaid the attraction of the gangs’ largely criminal activities.

Rob Muldoon famously developed a relationship with Black Power members in Wellington in the late 1970s. One incident involved him drinking with gang members at the Royal Tiger tavern and a subsequent party. One observer of Muldoon thought that his relationship with Black Power reflected his ‘concern for the ordinary New Zealander, the invisible battler, the underdog, the social casualty – provided they were seen to be making an effort…In a way I think he also saw them as a kind of Rotary Club, an association of support and fellowship with arcane rituals’. Over 100 hundred Black Power members performed a memorable haka as Muldoon’s coffin was carried from his funeral service at Auckland Town Hall in 1992.

The measure of political consensus over the social approach in the 1980s quickly unravelled after some serious criminal offending, in particular a very nasty gang rape at a Mongrel Mob ‘convention’ in Auckland in 1986. The work schemes were stopped. Support for the social approach was replaced by a familiar pattern of politicians such as John Banks, Mike Moore and Phil Goff deploying harsh and flamboyant rhetoric about cracking down on gangs.

In office, politicians have introduced a range of measures, attempting to address gang fortifications,wearing of patches in public, and tighter conspiracy laws. Most have failed. Ironically, one law change very damaging to gangs was the liberalisation of liquor laws, which severely impacted the popularity of illegal bars operated in many gang clubhouses.

This stuff is ancient history now – who even remembers anything before 2001? Perhaps some commenters might like to continue the story through the Clark, Key and Ardern administrations.

Simeon Brown released:

Police not attending half of mental health callouts

Figures released in the Police 2021 Annual Report show significant demand for police services which police are unable to meet, says National Party Spokesperson for Police Simeon Brown.

“It is distressing to see that in the last year police were only able to attend half of the mental health calls they received from the public with police saying they are unable cope with the increasing demand.

“Police attended more than 70,000 mental health calls in the past year which was a 10 per cent increase from the year before demands for service but have increased by more than 60 per cent in the past five years. Police estimate that this trend will only get worse with mental health related calls expected to increase by 44 per cent by 2025.

I’m sure everyone recalls Labour in 2017 saying mental health was their big priority and hat a difference they would make.

The difference in a 60% increase in mental health calls to Police and half of them not being able to be responded to.

Labour voted in Parliament for the bill that will do the biggest ever restructuring of the health system not to go to the Health Committee. Instead they set up a special select committee to consider it.

Here’s who Labour has on the Health Select Committee:

• Dr Liz Craig (doctor, public health specialist)
• Tracey McLellan (psychologist, nurses union)
• Dr Anae Neru Leavasa (doctor, GP)
• Sarah Pallett (midwife, midwifery lecturer)
• Dr Gaurav Sharma (dcotor, GP)
• Tangi Utikere (Deputy Mayor)

So five of the six Labour MPs on the Health Select Committee are health professionals. There was obviously a huge risk they might actually ask questions they were not meant to, so instead it has gone to a new committee. The Government really doesn’t like independence.

The Herald reported:

Covid 19 Delta outbreak: Kiwi diplomat pleads for MIQ space to attend world democracy forum

Auckland diplomat and consultant Andrew Lesā is desperately trying to secure an MIQ spot so he can attend the World Forum for Democracy in Strasbourg, France next month.

The 30-year-old policy consultant for the Asian Development Bank and board member of various Crown entities, has been trying for months to secure a place in MIQ so he can represent New Zealand and the Pacific at the forum.

Lesā points out that one of the criteria for an emergency MIQ space is based on matters of national interest and argues that attending a forum with high-level officials at a time when New Zealand is negotiating a free-trade agreement with the European Union is important. …

Over the past few months Lesā has tried repeatedly to book an MIQ place.

“I’m always at the very rear of the queue. It’s absolutely frustrating.”

He has also contacted ministers, senior MBIE staff, and his local MP and pleaded his case with an MIQ co-ordinator. …

Last week Lesā, who is fully vaccinated as are his family, managed to get in touch with the office of the Prime Minister.

“They are prepared to write a support letter for my emergency MIQ application.” …

The forum is not the first time Lesā has represented New Zealand in an official capacity. In 2012 he was the youngest member of a delegation on a state visit to Samoa, led by then Prime Minister John Key. And in 2019 he accompanied Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods to energy meetings in Canada.

Describing himself as a diplomat, he is a director of the Crown, sits on a string of boards including charities, Unitec, Manukau Institute of Technology, the New Zealand Maritime School, Emerge Aotearoa, and holds various community appointments.

He may describe himself as a diplomat, but he is not. A diplomat is an official representative of the Government. They are not self-appointed. They are empowered to both represent the Government and negotiate on behalf of the Government.

He may have been on the Pacific branch of the Labour Party, but he is not employed by MFAT and I understand they have not authorized him to represent New Zealand.

UPDATE: Fale Andrew Lesa has e-mailed to clarify that “Fale Andrew Lesa JP was invited as an individual in relation to his experience in public policy and governance.” and he made this clear to the Herald.

Matt Burgess at the NZ Initiative writes:

This week, Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta recorded a lengthy podcast with the Taxpayers’ Union. If you missed it, or do not want to spend 32 minutes unpicking platitudes, here is a summary:

Taxpayers’ Union: How does taking water assets off councils save money?
Nanaia Mahuta: Because of economies of scale. We need to solve under-investment. Water has to be financially sustainable. We’re not taking the assets.

What do mean you’re not taking the assets? Councils lose ownership except in name.
Councils will own the assets. We have to prevent privatisation. Economies of scale.

What ownership rights will councils have?
Councils will set strategic performance expectations. There will be good governance. Water won’t compete with other council services for funding.

Can you rule out iwi groups receiving water royalties?
We have to prevent privatisation. Iwi cannot sell the assets. Iwi care about the long term.

You said iwi won’t have a veto right. But iwi will be 50% of boards and major decisions require a 75% majority. So, iwi hold a veto, correct?
No.

Given 61 of 67 councils oppose your reform, how has consultation shaped your reform?
First, we need public ownership. Second, we must prevent privatisation. Third, we need solutions. Fourth, we want good governance.

Will ratepayers be represented on the working group?
Only through councils.

You signed off a Cabinet paper on the reform on 18 October. Four days later, your office received a summary of council submissions. Was your consultation a sham?
I received regular feedback from DIA and LGNZ through that period.

Why are the reforms so unpopular?
The current system does not work.

61 of 67 mayors oppose your reform.
It’s about the ratepayers.

Ratepayers hate your reforms. Have you seen our poll? It’s three to one against.
It’s about economies of scale.

Castalia has rubbished your cost modelling.
Castalia accepts privatisation. We must prevent privatisation.

Your cost savings are based on Scottish data which was not adjusted for New Zealand.
It was adjusted.

You are promising operating cost savings of 50% and [up to 9,000] more jobs in water. How does that make sense?
Economies of scale. Better funding.

You only looked at new statutory entities, not the existing Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) model. Why?
Because water needs to be able to borrow off council balance sheets. There is no way to do that with a CCO. Economies of scale. Prevent privatisation. Good governance. Affordable services.

Why is the Treaty relevant when we’re talking about pipes not water?
Excellent question. Iwi will achieve better environmental and drinking water outcomes for the whole community.

How are Māori more connected to the environment than anybody else?
They’re not. But Māori are very connected to the environment.

Why not leave water with councils and guarantee their debt instead?
Economies of scale.

It’s almost comical!

The NY Post reports:

She’s Sitting Bulls-t.

A Canadian medical researcher who rose to become the nation’s top voice on indigenous health has been ousted from her government job and her university professorship — after suspicious colleagues investigated her increasingly fanciful claims of Native American heritage and learned she was a fraud.

Carrie Bourassa, a public health expert who served as scientific director of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Indigenous Peoples’ Health, was suspended on Nov. 1, five days after the state-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published a lengthy expose on her background.

Far from being a member of the Métis nation, as she had long claimed, a laborious trace of Bourassa’s family tree revealed that her supposedly indigenous ancestors were in fact immigrant farmers who hailed from Russia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.

“It makes you feel a bit sick,” said Janet Smylie, a Métis professor at the University of Toronto who worked with Bourassa on a book about indigenous parenting.

“To have an impostor who is speaking on behalf of Métis and indigenous people to the country about literally what it means to be Métis … that’s very disturbing and upsetting and harmful.”

Colleagues began to doubt Bourassa’s story as she began to add claims of Anishinaabe and Tlingit heritage to her tale — and took to dressing in stereotypically indigenous fashion.

It started to unravel in 2019, when she appeared in full tribal regalia — draped in an electric blue shawl, with a feather in her partially braided hair — to give a TEDx Talk at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.

“My name is Morning Star Bear,” she said tearfully as the crowd cheered.

I suspect this is just going to become more common over time.

The Herald reported:

An attack on a lifeguard at Gore’s swimming pool has been described by the local council’s chief executive as the most disturbing episode he has seen in nearly 30 years of service in the local government sector.

McGregor Tioti Tume, 44, of Mataura, appeared in the Gore District Court this week and was sentenced to 10 and a half months’ home detention, to be served in Whanganui, with six months’ post-release conditions.

Tume admitted threatening to kill, impeding breathing or circulation, behaving threateningly and injuring with intent to injure after the incident on April 16.

A police summary of facts, read at an earlier court appearance, said the defendant was swimming at the Gore Aquatic Centre in a lane which had been booked.

The victim, who worked as a lifeguard, made multiple attempts to get Tume’s attention to shift into another lane.

After being unable to gain his attention she used a common technique and lightly touched Tume’s head to gain his attention.

He then climbed out of the pool and aggressively confronted the lifeguard before grabbing her and tackling her to the ground.

Tume dragged her into the leisure pool and submerged her head under the water for about seven seconds, using his weight to press her down.

As the victim was surprised by the attack she did not have time to hold her breath.

“At this point the victim felt that she was going to die,” the summary said.

This is a horrific attack. This man has, to put it mildly, serious anger issues. Dragging a staffer to a pool and forcing her head under is beyond cruel. It is brutal. I do not understand how he only gets home detention.

Claire Trevett writes:

But Luxon’s first press conference as National Party leader showed why Key had such confidence in him. He was assured and answered most questions succinctly and with confidence.

His first speech could almost have been delivered by Key.

It spoke of Luxon’s belief that while New Zealand was small, it had ambition. It spoke of opportunities and prosperity. There was even a reference to boats. In an interview afterward, his answers on the economy and debt could also have been delivered by Key.

He was inevitably asked about his religion – it is pointed to as a liability for him, mainly by those who sit on the other side of politics but also some in his own tent.

It will be to Luxon what the “rich prick investment banker” tag was to Key – always there but as time passes it will become increasingly irrelevant unless his religion does indeed intrude on his politics.

The target of his first speech was clear in his reference to the 413,000 voters National had lost since the last election.

He told them he would win them back. He is not John Key, but on his first day he certainly put on a good impression of being Key – and that may not be a bad thing.

It could give him a chance of hauling back those old National voters who will see him as representing the stable National they used to know in the Key days – not the fetid mess it has become since.

Luxon was very good yesterday. It was the right mixture of ambition for the future, while pointing out the current failures.

National now has a great opportunity to attract back traditional supporters and even gain those who voted for Labour on the basis of their promises, and have realised they have no capacity to deliver.

A guest post by Murray Gibb, a former CE of Water NZ:

Opposition to the three waters reform policy is 180 degrees wrong. You should be supporting it except for one point. I’ll deal with that one last.

Firstly, you argue that what is proposed is an anti – democratic power grab. Wrong. Local democratic input adds no value whatsoever to water services. Rather, the reverse is true.  It gets in the way of good decision making, because the short term demands of the ballot box coupled with the invisibility of pipes and pumps, means that local politicians prioritise more visible, and therefore more electorally attractive, spending. 

It is undeniable that we have a large water infrastructure deficit and that a circuit breaker is needed to improve matters. It has been around for decades and has been well known in informed circles. Former Commissioner for the Environment Morgan Williams identified it in his report ‘Aging Pipes and Murky Waters’ back in 2000.  Google it at

https://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/archive/1997-2006/ageing-pipes-and-murky-waters-urban-water-system-issues-for-the-21st-century

and also his subsequent report ‘Beyond Aging Pipes: Urban Water Systems for the 21^st century.’

How many sports arenas, council buildings and town halls round the country have been funded from money that was taken from ratepayers for water assets?  I’m a ratepayer in the Horowhenua.  The flashiest edifice by far in the district is the Council office in Levin. With 1/3 of their business going when these reforms go through it will be a white elephant.

Drinking and wastewater services are classic utilities, along with gas and electricity reticulation. Apply the counterfactual. If, as is being argued, the former require local government input to provide proper accountability, then logically the same should apply to the latter. There is no debate round taking gas and electricity assets and putting them in the hands of councils. The reason is obvious – competency. Would you trust the councillors running Wellington at the moment with gas and electricity?

Councils exist in the main, to provide public goods. By definition drinking and wastewater services are private goods. There is rivalry in consumption and non-payers can be excluded. There is a public good element (health risk) round the consequences of poor drainage, but that exists for many other private goods, for example the food industry. That risk is managed using different tools.

Stormwater services do sit in the public domain. They are lumped in with the other two because of the synergies in the engineering skills required to build and run them.

Conclusion: Removing local democracy from control of water services is a good thing.

Secondly, scale is required to achieve the capacity and capability necessary to deliver good quality water services. They are capital intensive and long lived. The wastewater pipes, installed in London after the Great Stink of 1858, still provide the backbone for that city’s drainage system.

What is being proposed in New Zealand follows a well – trodden path taken in many other countries which have faced exactly the same problems we have here. The general rule of thumb is that 200,000 connections (servicing about 500,000 people) are required to be able to employ the range of engineering and related skills necessary to deliver good quality service. We have 67 councils supplying 5 million people. By contrast Scotland now has one serving 5.4 million, Wales has one serving 3 million and England has 19 serving 54 million.

The Scottish example is instructive. Over 200 local councils previously provided water services. Standards were abysmal. In 1967 these were amalgamated into 13 regional water boards, which were reduced to three, and finally one in 2002. It is owned by the Parliament and has a one on one independent economic regulator. Previously substandard infrastructure has been upgraded, and today it is reckoned to be the fourth best performing water business in Britain. Importantly because of the economies of scale it has been able to achieve this while cutting costs by 40%.

That pattern has been repeated in other jurisdictions which have gone down the path proposed for New Zealand. So arguments that costs will go up with rationalisation in New Zealand will prove wrong. 

Conclusion: Scaling up water services results in better and more cost efficient service.

Thirdly, taking these services from local government and placing them in stand – alone businesses billing customers directly; changes the nature of the relationship between provider and user. It puts it on a business footing. That does two things:

1. It ups the expectations of both parties on each other. It becomes a business relationship rather than an administrative one. It can be contractually based as it is with electricity and gas supply; and
2. It improves transparency. The money taken from customers has to be spent on the business. At the moment that is not the case.  How much money supposedly taken from ratepayers for water services is currently used to prop up other council activities?

Conclusion: Putting water services into stand – alone entities improves transparency and accountability.

Fourthly, rationalisation of services allows for cross – subsidisation. On the face of it that might seem a bad thing, particularly in light of what I have argued above, but it is a common feature of well performing water businesses. The cost of reticulating these services to far flung customers in smaller centres is vastly more expensive than those in the centre of cities. Auckland, our largest metropolitan centres’ drinking and wastewater infrastructure isn’t too bad. Not so with those provided by smaller councils. None of the others meet the rule of thumb enumerated above.

Standardised charging for utility services irrespective of location is well accepted policy, and provides a way for funding upgrading sub – standard water infrastructure in smaller districts. 

To illustrate this point, the Banks Peninsula District Council faced a massive and unaffordable bill in upgrading its water ‘assets’ (in fact they were a nett liability as I suspect are those in many of our smaller districts). Knowing this it amalgamated with the Christchurch City in 2006. A rating base from a population of 8500 was just too small to fund the capital expenditure required to get things up to speed. Joining Christchurch allowed the required capex to be spread across a rating base from 360,000 people. Subsequently despite having just over 2 percent of the population, more than 10 percent of Christchurch’s annual water capex has at times been allocated to Banks Peninsula.

This pattern has been repeated wherever reform has occurred. In Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh citizens have funded the capital expenditure for the sparsely populated and far flung towns and villages in the Highlands. It is going on in Tasmania and Ireland at the moment.

Conclusion: Scaling up provides a mechanism for funding substandard water infrastructure.

Fifthly, there is fear that reform is a gigantic property/power grab by the Government. It is argued that assets built up by the voters in local districts over generations will be confiscated. That fear is misplaced.  Look to international experience. There are numerous examples of water infrastructure ownership models both public and private. Some are successful, some not so. The common feature of the well performing ones is not ownership models but the four points set out above.

Take Britain for example.

The Thatcher government privatised England’s water services in the 1980’s. 19 privately owned businesses there now perform to a far higher standard than those here. Incidentally, the reason why Margaret Thatcher did privatise water utilities, was that the national balance sheet was in such bad shape that it couldn’t bear the added debt required to get the utilities up to adequate service levels.  Does anyone fancy adding a couple of hundred extra billion dollars to New Zealand’s public debt?  That is one estimate of the bill for getting things up to speed over the next 30 years.

By contrast Scotland’s single water utility is publicly owned by the Parliament. It too is performing well.

Wales has a third model. The single water utility there is a mutual. If you buy a house there that has reticulated water services you are deemed to be an owner, in the same way that mutuals operate in New Zealand.

Conclusion: Successfully operating water services can operate under a variety of ownership models. Except where scale can be achieved, direct council ownership models fail to deliver high standards.

I think the Tasmanian model is best fitted for New Zealand.  The 29 councils that previously owned the assets are shareholders in TasWater, the amalgamated entity that now provides these services for the whole island.

Fear of future privatisation of these assets in New Zealand is misplaced. We’re a pretty left wing country and any move to sell off water infrastructure would simply be unacceptable to our electorate.

That all said, operationally, the way this proposal has been promoted has been ham fisted.

Good policy does not need childish propaganda in newspapers. Local government was always going to oppose it. Anything that reduces the size of councils reach will always attract their opposition.  The last round of local government reforms in 1989 were similarly bitterly opposed by them. (Anyone in favour of resurrecting the Eastbourne Borough Council now?).

A more adroit Government would not have attempted to buy off councils with a billion dollar plus bribe. It should have been clearer earlier with its proposed ownership model.  The Tasmanian model should have been rolled out at the start. That would have pre-empted the argument that it is expropriating Council assets.

There is one area where the government has completely mucked up with its proposals, and that is in governance. Having 50 percent of Board members being appointed by Iwi is just simply nonsense. Tribal governance systems have no place in modern capitalist democracies.  I hope they abandon that proposal and press on ahead with these reforms.

They are long overdue.

Simon Bridges has just announced that after meeting Christopher Luxon this morning he is withdrawing from the leadership contest and backing Luxon who he says will be a brilliant leader and PM.

Very pleased to see the leadership issue resolved, and looking forward to seeing a strong frontbench

The Telegraph reports:

A Wikipedia entry detailing “mass killings under Communist regimes” faces being purged from the platform over fears about bias.

The page outlining the deaths of millions in one-party states including the Soviet Union and China has been flagged for deletion, with some users responsible for maintaining the site taking issue with blaming mass murder on Communist ideology.

This is a variant on the usual hard left argument that marxism and communism is a wonderful system, and that it has only failed in every country that has implemented it because they didn’t do it correctly.

In this case they are arguing that the 100 to 150 million killed by communist governments is a bug, not a feature. It is purely by chance that governments slaughtered millions of their own citizens in the USSR, China, Tibet, Cambodia, Bulgaria, East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Ethiopia etc.