On this side of the Tasman, the circumstances relating to the ramming through Parliament under urgency of the now misnamed Three Waters, together with a number of other obviously non-urgent pieces of legislation, has given rise to scandal. This is not only because the government ignored most of 88,000 submissions, ignoring the widespread opposition to the legislation, and hearing only about 300, but because the highly activist Nanaia Mahuta defied party rules and the caucus decision, attempting to have the legislation entrenched, in order to make it virtually impossible for a future government to reverse this legislation, as National is pledged to do.

The ensuing public outcry has included condemnation from senior constitutional lawyers, including from the Law Society of New Zealand, pointing out that entrenchment provisions are reserved for significant constitutional matters outside the scope of general policy debate, and that this move was anti-democratic, proposing to bind the hands of future governments on a contestable policy position.

Forced into this position, Ardern obligingly agreed that ‘mistakes’ had been made … but questions are still to be answered. Both she and the Leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, denied any knowledge of the attempt to entrench the legislation, implying they were not at this caucus meeting. At least, in Ardern’s words, ‘It was not necessarily something I was aware of…’ a virtually meaningless statement. The question then arises, why did the Prime Minister herself and the Leader of the House apparently have no knowledge whatsoever that such an important and unconstitutional attempt was being made by Mahuta? Was this simply incompetence on their part?

Moreover, Nanaia Mahuta, the frankly embarrassing Minister of Foreign Affairs, and decidedly anti-democratic in her Local Government portfolio, claimed that the decision to add the entrenchment clause to the government’s overwhelmingly unpopular Three Waters legislation was indeed discussed in the presence of all the members of the Labour Party caucus, in advance of the House sitting. ‘And we knew it may [sic] not pass … but it was still worthy of consideration.’ Who is telling the truth?

In fact, as veteran reporter Barry Soper pointed out, the original Three Waters – applying to drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater – has now been expanded by stealth to include geothermal and coastal waters, and should be called Five Waters. Prime Minister Ardern’s Jesuitical repudiating of this point he made in an interview had the effulgent Jacinda, radiant in front of the camera, explain to us all that the new Five really equalled Three. It was stunning as a piece of slippery evasiveness, arguably surpassing even the best of her past verbal convolutions.

Unfortunately, Ardern’s reputation for truthfulness has been undermined by her well-remembered assertion in relation to whether or not vaccination for Covid would be mandated. ‘Not only will there be no forced vaccinations, but those who choose to opt-out won’t face any penalties.’ Regardless of whether it was reasonable that those caring for vulnerable people should be subsequently expected to offer them what was then seen as that extra protection, our Prime Minister’s statement was not only untrue, but was completely contradicted by her admission that the country would become a two-tier society between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, following new government measures. Asked about the creation of two classes of citizens – between the vaccinated and unvaccinated – she agreed, saying, ‘That is what it is.’ Many will also recall that when asked about the He Puapua proposed Co-Governance provisions, she denied knowledge of them, although some of her own ministers were apparently already scrutinising them. It was also almost impossible for the public to gain access to them, and the version initially released was heavily redacted. Naturally.

Public and privately calls are now being made to sack Mahuta, given also considerable unrest caused by the fact that some of her closest relatives are allegedly benefiting from being awarded government contracts. Some are surmising that her standing in relation to the fifteen Maori members within the Labour coalition government is too great for Ardern to front up to her. Certainly, her ever-beaming Prime Minister is defending her wayward minister, white-washing Mahuta’s defying of the party’s previous stance against attempting impeachment while also breaking her party’s ruling against ministerial interference.

It is little wonder that both the Prime Minister’s and Labour’s support has dived – with Ardern’s own rating at its lowest ever. Her government’s determined attack on our democracy, basically granting wealthy and powerful iwi – (neo-tribal corporations by no means representing the majority of part-Maori in this country) – greater control over vital decision-making is a direct attack on all our institutions. Moreover, most of us know, from our day-to-day interactions and discussions with those of part-Maori descent – from the professions, the trades, farmers, and others throughout the community – that they are very well aware of what the highly vocal, predominantly academic, and privileged minority groups backing Arden’s radicalised initiatives are up to – and oppose them. Willie Jackson, apparently wedded to complaining about the supposed evils of colonialism, and currently regarded, as Minister of Broadcasting, as making a hash of supposed reforms to television and radio, has reportedly stated, ‘When we have control of the water, we have total control of Aotearoa.’

Few doubt that this is the ultimate aim of the iwi, their wealth having already bought them undue influence throughout our universities and institutions. And what else, apart from the aim of promoting dissent, has been behind the move to rename all government departments, and all public and as many private institutions as possible, in today’s inauthentic and reinvented te Reo? Grossly discourteous to the majority of New Zealanders, it is intelligible to only about 4 per cent of the population. But as George Orwell would point out – control the language and you control the culture… What is belatedly being recognised as cultural bullying is now rampant.

Which way are we going? The thinking of the majority now is that at all costs Jacinda Ardern’s government has to be removed at the next election. But few have any illusions about National leader Christopher Luxon’s ability to steer the country back to terra firma. So much now depends on the part the other anti-Left parties can play. New Zealand is undoubtedly at crisis point.