At best, it is a tax on provincial New Zealand to pay for the incompetence of our larger cities. At worst, it is a reallocation of our local resources to iwi via the backdoor.
The justification for this government chicanery is the tragedy that was the Hastings water supply. The problem was slack local government and not water assets. How the Hastings incompetence became a national Three Waters scheme defies all logic except to provide a convenient excuse for the Government to manipulate.
Of further irritation is that most farmers get their water from the roof or a spring and the waste goes into a septic tank. The problem is that the Government wants the provinces to pay for the reforms in two ways.
The first is by the confiscation of assets we already own. The second by contributing to the almost $3.5 billion taxation the Government is already throwing at the scheme.
That money could be better spent on research, development, housing and roading.
It also begs the question as to why tax the provinces for the foibles of the big cities. Auckland and Wellington got themselves into the current crisis. My view is that they can pay to get themselves out of it. Leave my tax dollars well alone.
There are two pieces of legislation that fit the crazy category. The first is the Water Services Bill. The legislation appoints an independent regulator, which I support, but that regulator covers all farm water schemes that supply more than one dwelling. The reason given is that “everyone is entitled to safe drinking water” is spurious.
Our 75,000 rural schemes are going to suffer another government-inspired bureaucratic intervention requiring extra reporting and for what? I’m unaware of any problems with rural water and I’ve been drinking it for long enough.
Ridiculously, in my view, a government document told me that “compliance among suppliers serving 100 consumers or less is unknown but unlikely to be low”.
So these clowns don’t know what’s really going on, but are still willing to make judgements and impose an excessively bureaucratic system.
The question I have is to ask is, why penalise small rural schemes when there isn’t any accurately defined problem?
Following on from the Water Services stupidity, we then have Three Waters that I’d describe as a grasping power grab for little provable benefit.
What the process does is to confiscate the water, wastewater and sewerage assets from the local councils who have paid for them and then incorporate them into four super organisations with little local representation.
Bigger isn’t always better.
The reasons given for this asset grab are government claims that local councils are going to be in for massive bills to fix their infrastructure and it will be cheaper if four super entities do it. There are many figures provided by the Government as justification for the asset grab. I don’t find those figures remotely credible. Fortunately, neither do many councils.
The Government plans to take the water, waste and sewerage assets of 67 democratically elected councils and put them into four massive pots. Iwi will effectively control 50% of those agencies.
That effectively means that assets are being transferred from ratepayers to iwi.
How that will happen is that there will be a Regional Representative Group made up of mana whenua representatives and those from local authorities each with 50%. That group appoints and monitors the Independent Selection Panel, which will appoint and monitor the boards of the four organisations.
Cabinet has therefore agreed to part of NZ (16%) being effectively given significant control over assets and major influence over the delivery of services that are vital to the wellbeing of the entire country.
It is the effective confiscation of assets owned by you and me. I’m unaware of any offers of compensation.
That is wrong and totally undemocratic.
The Government’s consulting with experts is also problematic, with economic consultancy Castalia claiming “the Government’s policy process appears flawed and is focusing on high-risk options that may not deliver benefits”. That should ring alarm bells – if anyone is listening that is.
The Government’s consultation with councils has also been farcical. They get less than two months to respond to the proposals, which means no meaningful public consultation. In the meantime, we’re subjected to an over-the-top advertising campaign that suggests to me the decisions have already been made.
Correspondingly, iwi had over 12 months of consultation.
It’s time to pull the plug on the entire circus and define the problem accurately, consult everyone meaningfully and start again honestly.
