Water diversions
I am appalled at the misinformation being spread by opponents of centralised, co-ordinated governance of the Three Waters.
The main objection touted is the "seizure": of council assets, socialism at its worst.
The truth is the Government will be assuming the debt associated with these assets, in
the case of some councils who have made many ill-advised decisions in water infrastructure requiring many costly fixes. This debt is huge, far beyond the ability of the ratepayers to own it.
So the objection is against the formation of informed boards to make informed expert well-managed decisions on water infrastructure expenditure, as against the status quo; having a locally elected body of uninformed lay people with no expertise signing off on multimillion-dollar water projects which have delivered many costly and spectacular failures, and in some case deaths.
Which option makes more sense really?
Paul Cheshire, Maraetai.
Property rights
Simon Wilson rightly, criticises Christopher Luxon (NZ Herald, June 14) for his inability to explain National's position on Three Waters. But there is a principled objection to co-governance. It is based on the protection of property rights.
Where Maori land is confiscated or sold at an unfair price, the law should provide a remedy, and iwi are entitled to compensation.
In some cases, compensation has been by way of payment. In others, by transfer of land. The National Government also "compensated" some iwi by setting up a co-governance structure with former Maori assets that remain in the public domain.
An example is Auckland's volcanic cones. These cones were used by iwi as fortresses. Somehow, the cones became reserves held for the benefit of the public. To return these reserves to private iwi ownership was not politically acceptable. The solution was to share control between the local authority and iwi, who accepted co-governance as a compromise.
No such background exists with Three Waters. These pipes and reservoirs were created by, and belong to, ratepayers. There is no loss of a property right by iwi, and thus no need to compensate by way of co-governance.
John Reardon, Ōrewa.
Put to flight
As your editorial stated (NZ Herald, June 14), it is high time New Zealand removed the pre-departure testing for travellers.
The medical grounds for this are now well and truly gone and even America has removed it.
In addition, it is time for an urgent review of our immigration settings with employers having substantiated numerous additions and tweaks to the "green list" (such as for health workers).
New Zealand is missing out on tourists, immigrant workers and international students - to the detriment of our economy and our service deliveries.
Let's hope the new minister hits the ground running and acts.
Lucas Bonne, Unsworth Heights.
Rugby role model
What a remarkable young man Macken Graham is (NZ Herald, June 14). He represents what is best in the human spirit and exemplifies qualities people more mature would envy, whilst displaying wisdom beyond his 13 years. In the present climate of political posturing and petty gaslighting, there are more than a few individuals in Parliament who would benefit greatly from taking lessons from Macken in fortitude and humility.
Mary Hearn, Glendowie.
Arise, Sir Trevor?
It is no big secret that Mallard has been immensely unpopular.
Traditionally when the Speaker leaves Parliament, he or she becomes a knight or a dame.
It will be interesting to see if Mallard is rewarded accordingly since he has just been removed from the Speaker's position.
Dave Miller, Matua.
