5 WATERS: ARDERN GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY

To comment please open your gmail account oruse my email address, FB Messenger or Twitter.

the new age socialist Robin Hood

 

 New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is a narcissist, a psychopathic liar, a tyrant, a traitor and a mass murderer all rolled into one. And in her latest escapade of 'Five Waters' she is guilty of grand larceny to boot.

A nice chap admitted to a group of Christians at a meeting yesterday that he voted for Ardern because she seemed compassionate. He said it with a smile and the Christians all smiled too and forgave him. He doesn't seem to realise, even yet, what he did.

If you can believe the election result, he and most Kiwis voted for a puppet, and the puppet master is Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum. Schwab is the closest the world has yet come to the Antichrist and his spiritual director, you might say, is Antipope Francis who has ambitions to lead Schwab's new world religion.

If anyone in the mainstream media knows any of this, they're not saying. That's because Ardern has stitched them up with our money, 55 million dollars of it. Even freelance journalists like Graham Adams, who says "We need to talk about Jacinda" (a la Lionel Shriver's best-seller, "We Need to Talk about Kevin"), or Peter Williams at the Taxpayers' Union, don't know the half of it. That's because they lack spiritual insight. Or because they don't read Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano (which is another way of saying the same thing).

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places (Eph 6:12).

New Zealand's journalists, of whatever stripe, including those at NZ Catholic for example, won't wear this. It's too hard. To believe it means walking that "strait" way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!(Mt 7:14b). 

But at least Adams and Williams have the facts of this sorry, shocking, sordid matter. So let's dive into Ardern's (or is it Mahuta's?) Five Waters. Adams first. 

 It takes a large dollop of brazenness — and perhaps desperation — to deny reality quite as readily as Jacinda Ardern was willing to do last Tuesday, but the Prime Minister did not resile from the task.

When Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper asked her why the three waters (fresh water, storm water and waste water) had suddenly become five waters (with the late addition of coastal and geothermal water) in the amended Water Services Entities Bill, Ardern flatly denied that was the case.

Denying observable facts is typical of very young children before they understand that bending the truth beyond breaking point is an art that requires at least a modicum of plausibility to avoid ending up deeply and shamefully embarrassed.

Ardern’s denial reminded me of a three-year-old niece who, when asked why her name had appeared on the wall of her bedroom written in red crayon, claimed a visiting friend had done it — even while she was clutching a red crayon in her own hand. Her young friend had yet to learn to write.

While this might be seen as an amusingly naive ploy in a child anxious to avoid the consequences of being caught red-handed, such behaviour is plainly alarming in an adult — and especially when that adult happens to be the Prime Minister.

Ardern told Soper — in a strained voice: “The reference [to coastal and geothermal water] in the legislation does not change the scope of Three Waters. It’s only about the drinking water, waste water and storm water.”

Soper: “It extends into coastal and geothermal, if you read the legislation, which I’ve done this morning.”

Ardern replied, with such stilted diction it sounded as if she was reading from a press statement: “I have read the legislation. It does not change its scope… However, I can see, based on your questions, that it has caused, potentially, some confusion. So we’ll ask the drafters whether there’s a way to make it much clearer…”

“So you’re going to have it changed, are you?” Soper asked.

Ardern: “No, [I’m] just going to ask the question whether or not it could be drafted with more clarity because it’s obviously created some confusion.”

In fact, the clause Soper was referring to is perfectly clear. Confusion has only arisen because the Prime Minister decided to argue black was white.

Her attempt to blame Parliament’s legal staff alongside disputing a common-sense reading of a clause smacks of desperation, no doubt because she knows her government is in deep trouble over its underhand move to fulfil Māori aspirations to control all the water in and around New Zealand — via granting iwi the exclusive right to issue Te Mana o te Wai statements that are binding on the four Water Service Entities.

Helping achieve this aim by quietly slipping a highly contentious amendment into a bill that was shortly to have its second reading — and after public submissions had closed and been considered — has to be ranked as one of the most deeply cynical and dishonest manoeuvres in the history of modern New Zealand politics.

Yet, even after her government had been caught out in such a dishonourable move to extend the bill’s coverage beyond three waters, the Prime Minister was keen to pretend it hadn’t actually happened.

As Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan put it to The Country’s host Jamie Mackay: “This is a new thing [the government] is doing. They just deflect and pretend it’s not a fact. So it’s the three waters already and then they chucked into the legislation — which is available online for anybody to read — geothermal and coastal, which makes it five waters, doesn’t it?”

Mackay: “Yeah, it’s five waters by my count. With [the seabed and] foreshore coming back to bite us on the backside.”

By denying that adding coastal and geothermal water will boost the number of categories of water covered by the bill to five, Ardern was gaslighting the nation in a way that makes a quote from George Orwell’s 1984 entirely apposite: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

The Prime Minister has always had difficulty dealing straightforwardly with dissent or criticism and is clearly allergic to admitting she is wrong — let alone getting around to apologising. She is also not above making stuff up to defend the indefensible.

In In other words, she tells lies.Whoppers.  

However, denying that a clause in legislation means what any reasonably intelligent person — or lawyer — would accept its meaning to be is a new and worrying expression of that deep character flaw.

One of the more bizarre tactics she has employed to ward off criticism during her five-year tenure is accusing opposition MPs of “politicking” or “playing politics” — as she has done when debating issues such as co-governance with iwi or the management of Covid.

When you are immersed in the business of politics, as she is, accusing others of “politicking” is absurd — yet she does it without any apparent awareness of how risible it is.

Ardern certainly didn’t welcome Soper’s impertinence in pointing out what are undeniable facts in the amended legislation. Quite possibly she thought it was an example of a journalist “politicking”.

In an essay on free speech published last month, former District Court judge David Harvey assessed the Prime Minister’s character: “Ms Ardern is possessed of a high sense of the righteousness of her cause. She does not debate ideas. She rejects them or refutes the premises of opposition without engaging in debate. She therefore avoids confronting the uncomfortable reality that she may be wrong. And by rejecting and refuting she adopts an air of superiority that views dissent as evil.”

Ardern’s self-righteousness and propensity to bend the truth into weird and unaccustomed shapes was, of course, signalled early in her tenure as the leader of the Labour Party.

During one of the leaders’ debates in 2017, when moderator Patrick Gower asked what she would do if she were to be “caught in a lie or caught intentionally misleading the New Zealand public”, Ardern piously replied, “Politicians make mistakes but a true mark of leadership is whether you front those mistakes [and] be as transparent as possible with the public when you make them.”

She also said she believed “it is possible to exist in politics without lying”, and claimed she’d never told a lie in politics.

Only someone with a high degree of self-regard and self-delusion could say anything quite that preposterous with a straight face and expect not to be jeered at but Ardern believes so deeply in her own goodness she managed to carry it off.

What she believes in is the new age socialist Agenda 2030: in short, to take from those who have and give to those who have not. 

Some of the audience actually clapped — presumably believing they were in the presence of a latter-day saint who had a miraculous ability to float above the tawdry, everyday business of politics.

To so outrageously deny political reality — and human nature — was, however, a step too far for then Prime Minister Bill English. When he was asked the same question about the possibility of surviving in politics without lying, he couldn’t in all honesty agree.

When you ride a very high horse, as the Prime Minister does, falling off can be painful and spectacular.

As the wheels of her government continue to wobble alarmingly — as they are in education, health, crime, and cost of living, to name just a few of the disasters Ardern is presiding over — watching how she reacts to the relentless criticism inevitable in an election year will bring its own horrified fascination, both for supporters and opponents alike.

If her bizarre burst of laughter last month when a journalist asked about the “hiding” Labour had taken at the local body elections and now her denying the obvious, common-sense interpretation of a legislative clause is any guide, the year ahead is going to be quite a ride for those who follow the Prime Minister’s fortunes.

 

Undue influence on Co-Governance: Apartheid: Labour list MP Tamati Coffey 

And now, Graham Adams:

   No longer is this just about how our water services are governed –   it's about democracy and even our constitution.

Last week Green MP Eugenie Sage tabled an amendment ( an "SOP" or supplementary order paper) to the Three Waters legislation that was being rushed through Parliament under urgency.

Incredibly, the opposition parties didn't even notice until after the Government had passed it. It added a provision that the law relating to the ownership and control of water services and significant assets could only be repealed by 60 percent of MPs or a referendum. No one had a say on this, and the fact it was done under urgency says it all.

In effect, the Government and the Greens are trying to bind subsequent goverments/parliament. It's the ultimate in an underarm bowl. As a senior lawyer put it: 

Entrenchment

Entrenchment is usually limited to very few core constitutional items that underpin our democracy such as the voting age, voting method and the term of Parliament. These are usually entrenched with broad cross-party support after thorough debate and public consultation and require at least 75% of MPs to vote in favour of any repeal or amendment.

In this case, the government has supported an amendment set out in a Supplementary Order Paper proposed by Green MP Eugenie Sage that was passed under urgency to entrench a provision which does not relate to a constitutional matter. They did so in direct contravention of Crown Law Office advice and without public consultation. The level of entrenchment was set not at the usual 75%, but at 60% for the only reason that that percentage represents the Labour and Green votes in Parliament.

Entrenchment of any provision in the Three Waters reforms is controversial for two reasons. First, it adds complexity and uncertainty to any new government’s plans to repeal and replace this legislation. Secondly, it is a major alteration to New Zealand’s unwritten constitution which could see governments of any hue attempting to entrench their significant policy reforms in an effort to tie the hands of their successors. It threatens to draw the courts and Parliament into direct conflict over fundamental questions of sovereignty. Constitutional lawyers have been united in expressing deep concern over the government’s actions - some of them have gone so far as to describe it as democratic vandalism.

ACT leader David Seymour was on Newstalk ZB this morning on the issue. I highly recommend a listen.

Be in no doubt, if this goes ahead, it would be an act of constitutional vandalism. 

With the Government’s current proposal, the principle of entrenchment is blown apart. What would stop a future centre-Right government from entrenching lower taxes or restrictions on the size of the public service, for example? We would like those policies, but in a democracy, voters need to be able to change public policy through the ballot box in regular elections. 

Now in theory, if Parliament is sovereign, a future government could simply repeal this entrenchment provision and then move onto repeal the legislation itself. But even if that survived a court challenge, it would undermine the important electoral entrenchments we already have. And if it didn’t, it would put us into completely unchartered constitutional waters. 

This isn’t about privatisation—it’s about control.  

 

Just as Jacinda's jabs and lockdowns were about control. And the whole world's jabs and lockdowns were about control. 

 

As early as April, the media were reporting that ministers were keen to shift the controversy over the reforms from co-governance fears to fears of privatisation.

But it was always a false flag: No one is proposing privatisation. What this is really about, is changing the rules of the game. It wouldn’t matter how you vote next year, as this provision could block a future Government from repealing this controversial approach to water reform. 

It is particularly disappointing that this move has come from a Green MP. While unsurprisingly the Taxpayers’ Union tends to agree with the party on very little, we have always recognised their commitment to openness, transparency and localism. But the move today confirms that the Greens are no different to Labour in their contempt for the voting public. 

And it isn’t just the parties of the Right who are outraged by this. It has received condemnation from across the political spectrum and from academia too. A group of eight academics wrote an open letter in today’s NZ Herald criticising the constitutional precedent this would set and the way it has been introduced at a very late stage in the legislative process.

The prime minister recognised on RNZ this morning that the concerns were ‘legitimate’. An understatement if ever there was one. She also confirmed that the principle of entrenchment will be discussed at the meeting of the cabinet this afternoon. 

If the Government does not drop this plan today, we will launch a campaign with full-page newspaper and TV ads by the end of the week to ensure that all New Zealanders are aware of the Government's outrageous tactics to trash our constitution

Be in no doubt, if this goes ahead, it would be an act of constitutional vandalism. 

 

Anticipating the birth of Our Lord, the liturgy reminds us also of His second coming