Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Oh lawd, could you explain this to the wider public in amongst all the chaotic misinformation mayhem that would be created by its opponents?

I'd love to see such a campaign. Quite possible that it would fail, seen as Labour/Green manipulation and campiagned against by a resurgent National/Act. Still the debate is worth having. And it might spark debate about what else we can more or less agree should be entrenched.

Transferring control over water from ratepayers to Maori aristocrats *is* privatization.

Seems like the blindingly obvious is being missed.

You can call it that, but you'd be giving the word your own meaning. Governance is not ownership.

The reality is that control of water is being stripped from the public and handed to an aristocracy - a racial aristocracy unaccountable to the public.

Control of water is being removed from the public and placed in private hands.

Ownership means little without control.

Feel free to play word games about 'governance' versus 'ownership', but reality is what it is.

Of course, reality is being obscured by a blizzard of bullshit.

"Control" in a partnership is an emotive word. In a marriage-type relationship, at least in ideal terms, would we say one or other partner has "control"? Or would we rather think of it as a joint venture? This is something Aotearoa needs to talk out, and fair to say we are not there yet!

Why is 'control' suddenly an emotive word? I'm just noting a reality. Can't help it if that reality arouses emotions.

What 'marriage-type relationship'? What 'joint venture'? Those seem to me like bloody stupid analogies. It's not like the citizens ever gave their consent. If we're playing the analogy game, why not liken it to rape?

Why does this need to be 'talked out'? Does the rapist want to run some excuses past us?

Just endless attempts to obscure the reality that citizens are being robbed to privilege aristocrats. It's sort of like Robin Hood in reverse, but hey the costumes and swordfights are cool so we'll tell ourselves nothing's wrong here.

Control is emotive here because its wrong. 'Aristocrats' is pretty emotive too, but likening this to sexual violence really takes the cake.
This obviously touches a nerve for you. Be good to have a grown up debate on co-governance one day tho.

If you think the word 'control' is inaccurate, then please just say that. Whether the word 'control' is emotive is an entirely separate matter, and not really relevant.

'Aristocrats' is accurate. Again, whether or not it is emotive is a separate issue.

You used the marriage metaphor, which implies consent. I responded with the rape metaphor, because consent has not been sought or given.

Citizens of a democracy should not be getting shafted without consent. So yes, this 'touches a nerve' with me. That is, I have an opinion on it.

No idea what to do with your claim that my opinion is insufficiently 'grown up' for you. Do you consider all opinions that differ from your own to be childlike?

My own opinions can be plenty childlike. Just saying NZ needs to have a sensible thoughtful conversation about co governance.
And maybe Im not being clear enough. The marriage analogy is simple: in an equal partnership NEITHER party can be said to be in control. Control is shared. Neither party can over rule the other. There are many reasonable arguments for and against what is proposed- practical and principled reasons. But we dont get to have that conversation by misrepresenting the notion in the first place.

Why do we need a conversation on co-governance? We already have universal suffrage, meaning everyone gets an equal vote.

Oh hang on. Actually we no longer have universal suffrage because the government has destroyed that pillar of our democracy in the name of co-governance.

Your marriage analogy was perfectly clear the first time. So was my response.

We disagree and that's fine.

One thing I've noticed is that when political types tell you there is a need for a "conversation", they generally have no actual interest in your views and simply want to ram something especially outrageous down your throat.

We need to know just what we’re getting, what we’re giving up, what we can do to change things that might not work, and why we’re opting for - or against – co-governance.
Its ironic you mention everyone getting an equal vote; the debate around 3 waters involves local government and in NZ currently people who own multiple properties can vote more than once. So here at some stage we’ve chosen to elevate another principle – something like the old “no taxation without representation” – over the principle of “one person one vote.” Both principles seem reasonable, but here they clash.
As someone who is “co-governance curious” but sees many gnarly questions and is not yet convinced, I’d just like a debate that isnt all accusations of racism, dog whistles, and metaphors of violence.
Too much to ask? Gotta say: PASystem was where Id have looked. I miss this place!

I'm not sure there is a clash between "one person one vote" and "no taxation without representation" in the case you mention.

Nobody is getting extra votes in any given election simply through owning more property. Rather, some people get to vote in multiple local elections because they own properties in multiple districts (i.e. pay rates to multiple local governments).

That looks analogous to how people with multiple citizenships can vote in elections in multiple countries. Not sure that is necessarily a problem, or how it could best be solved.

You could strip voting rights from property owners (i.e. ratepayers) and limit voting in local elections to local residents. That would go down well in many quarters, but I'm not sure it's really fair. Of course ultimately it's residents who pay rates (whether directly or via their rent), so there is an argument to be made there.

Apologies for bringing up "metaphors of violence". I simply intended to demonstrate the emptiness of your marriage analogy.

In any case, people are free to view the Three Waters rort as "a good kind of rape", a la The Vagina Monologues.

Its also arguable that the ability to vote in several local body elections gives an unequal weighting to some (wealthy) voters preferences. YMMV.
There are plenty of gnarly issues in the models of co governance we've seen.
If marriage doesnt work as a metaphor, perhaps see it as a 50:50 vote in a boardroom. The point about control I was fumbling towards is that equality shouldnt give control to either party. A 50:50 split means both parties have to agree, which tends to mean compromise where there is conflict - or stasis.
Is this a good system? In terms of 3 waters, I think it's worth trying. But it would be good to have a backup plan if it does tend to stasis.
We tend to think democracy is 'finished'. Established, unchangable. But there are always experiments and improvements possible.

AI spam is going to be a real menace. And AI hackers will work all night and day :(

AI spam is going to be a real menace. And AI hackers will work all night and day :(

There are already too many of them popping up here. Seemingly faster than we can report them.

This article - the end of buzzfeed news, descent of the big platforms - makes one wonder if PA and places like this might be the future (again) :)
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/buzzfeed-blue-check-marks-and-the-end-of-an-internet-era

Unfortunately, I had an article ready about New Zealand’s entrenchment issue but now find it irrelevant. My thesis would have been that hasty proposals with quick votes are no way to handle such important matters and will ultimately undermine entrenchment as well as jeopardize its constitutional basis.

New Zealand doesn’t enshrine very many things into law, unlike countries with written constitutions which provide protection for much more than it. Debating what deserves constitutional protection should certainly continue; let’s just do it differently this time around!

Max Harris and Gordon Campbell offer this alternative suggestion for protecting public ownership of water infrastructure: engage the public via binding referendum to get support, just as happened with the Electoral Act in 1993, to achieve similar levels of protection without resorting to political haggling tactics. This way, public ownership would receive similar levels of protection without resorting to legislative tricks!

So if public ownership of water assets is your goal, enter each election campaign with this in mind: If we fail to achieve 75% support in Parliament for keeping them public, a binding referendum may be called; either that would force future Parliaments into keeping these assets publicly owned, or force another referendum vote in their place.

Believe it or not, protesting can be an effective way of upholding what you believe without undermining its moral heft. But you need to approach it seriously if it’s going to work; don’t use it just as a political weapon! Start building bridges between candidates now so they’re clear to take office in November – not vice versa! Fix what needs fixing now so voters know you mean business next election cycle!