Anybody who was pro-something can generally find a study, a survey, or an expert to back up their argument, anyone who's against can find the same. Whatever that position might be, there's a survey or an expert ready to back you up; lies, damn lies and statistics.
But I do back the economic modeler hired by local body councils, who have banded together against the Three Waters reforms, because they seem to be looking purely at pragmatics.
They look to be purely looking at economics of the matter, they're not driven by ideology.
According to a consultancy that does economic modeling on behalf of Communities 4 Local Democracy, which counts 31 of New Zealand 67 councils as members, the economic case for the Government reforms, particularly the Government wanting to strip control of assets from councils, that economic model simply doesn't stack up.
The submission proposes setting strong regulations for water quality, but allowing councils significant freedom to meet the standards without forcing councils to lose control of their infrastructure. Auckland, for example, would keep Watercare, the smaller councils would see it as more sensible to amalgamate their water services.
We don't have a problem with the regulation and the stronger regulation. Where we do have a problem is when ratepayers have invested in upgrading their assets, their infrastructure, they've bitten the bullet, and they’ve paid the higher rates.
Now not only are they not going to be compensated for that, they're going to see the control of the assets and the infrastructure taken out of their hands. And that's what they don't like.
So if it's done purely on the economics of it, Communities 4 Local Democracy have a plan for you. If the Government says, okay, we accept that it's not about economics, it's about ideology, then at least they're being honest about their intentions.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB
According to a consultancy that does economic modeling on behalf of Communities 4 Local Democracy, which counts 31 of New Zealand 67 councils as members, the economic case for the Government reforms, particularly the Government wanting to strip control of assets from councils, that economic model simply doesn't stack up.
The submission proposes setting strong regulations for water quality, but allowing councils significant freedom to meet the standards without forcing councils to lose control of their infrastructure. Auckland, for example, would keep Watercare, the smaller councils would see it as more sensible to amalgamate their water services.
We don't have a problem with the regulation and the stronger regulation. Where we do have a problem is when ratepayers have invested in upgrading their assets, their infrastructure, they've bitten the bullet, and they’ve paid the higher rates.
Now not only are they not going to be compensated for that, they're going to see the control of the assets and the infrastructure taken out of their hands. And that's what they don't like.
So if it's done purely on the economics of it, Communities 4 Local Democracy have a plan for you. If the Government says, okay, we accept that it's not about economics, it's about ideology, then at least they're being honest about their intentions.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB
4 comments:
But at least they will still own the assets...
The general rhetoric seems to be that councils are OK with the concept but not happy with some of the detail.
I would have thought councils were either for or against the whole deal and done whatever they could to support their position.
Unfortunately Joe Public is probably not too aware of what 3 waters means and as usual with NZ, not too concerned until it hurts.
The main sticking point for me is the representation of Maori to the extent proposed. If the 3 waters is needed, which I doubt, why are Maori to be given authority of veto over everything 3 waters is planned to achieve ?
One can be forgiven for thinking this is nothing to do with water but purely ideology driven.
Perhaps 3 waters is one step toward full implementation of He PuaPua.
Time will tell, this sort of carry on will increase and wont stop until NZ wakes up and puts a stop to it all, one way or another.
Seriously, it’s pretty clear (as freelance journalist Graham Adams has clearly exposed) that 3-waters is not really about efficiencies or, better water, or more money for future work, because if you wanted all those things you wouldn’t do what they are doing. Instead, it’s really about co-governance, and delivering Iwi-Maori a power of veto at virtually every level of decision making over 3-waters. It is about giving Iwi-Maori power over the water that falls from the sky, and it is a total betrayal of non-Maori NZers’ rights and heritage.
Economics has absolutely nothing to do with 3 waters. The whole thing is driven by He Puapua and the labour cults ideology and determination to get rid of democracy and introduce tribal rule apartheid. You only have to look at their progress with the maorification of the Health Ministry, Corrections, Oranga Tamariki, local government, DOC, the bulldozing of pidgin english throughout the media, spending countless hundreds of millions on all things maori and the centralisation of everything. If you cannot see anything dodgy with this cult Kerre, I dont quite know where you have your head but it must be uncomfortable.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.