Letters: Protecting water from privatisation easier said than done

The Three Waters Reform legislation passed its third reading this week. Photo / 123rf

There were two poor and worthless “locks” against privatisation touted for Three Waters. The first - entrenchment - was always a poor idea legally and surprise surprise the Government this week admits that.

The other mechanism “preventing” privatisation is council-owned shares. This big LGNZ trumpeted win (changing ownership from partnership requiring agreement among partners to shares - a mechanism designed to trade equity) provides an incentive not a roadblock to privatisation.

The simple fact is that any council would be negligent not to take any substantial offer given for otherwise unsellable faux shares with no rights that pay no dividends and the sale of shares does not require consultation with other shareholders (very different to partnerships).

Regardless of what local politicians might say a council voting not to sell and use the cash for more services or rates reduction could be challenged and would probably lose as selling is the only fiscally prudent decision.

The ironic thing is if the ownership (shares) was actually given to iwi (as all the fearmongering made out) that would stop privatisation dead given the Māori view “Te mana o te wai” means “ownership” of water as inalienable (or more accurately sees guardianship, trust and responsibility. In this view ownership is an oxymoron).

There is nothing legally or practically now preventing privatisation other than voters’ memory of political promises made. Unfortunately, voters’ memory is short.

JAMES BARRON

Castlecliff

Three Waters our best option

I totally agree with Brit Bunkley’s assessment on Three Waters (Letters, December 6). Three Waters legislation has been misrepresented by the media, National and Act parties, right-wing commentators and many right-wing leaning mayors. It has become very political.

I don’t believe rates will not rise substantially [just the opposite]. If co-governance is an issue for some, we just need to look at the success of co-governance with the Whanganui and Waikato rivers as examples of where it works. Māori traditionally have a huge respect for water and it can only be a positive for Māori to share in co-governance of Three Waters.

The purpose of Three Waters is to keep our rates down, to provide expertise to all councils and to ensure safe drinking water and reliable infrastructure for future generations.

While the National and Act parties agree there needs to be change, they have no policy to do so, apart from keeping the status quo and giving individual councils funds for their own needs.

For most councils, this would be beyond their means. I admire Mahuta’s resoluteness, despite a barrage of unwarranted criticism.

In an earlier letter to the editor I asked if our mayor, Andrew Tripe, could explain how our council will deal with our ageing water infrastructure, without incurring substantial long-term rate increases. It would be timely to do so now.

In the meantime, I for one, see Three Waters as our best option.

KEN CARVELL

Whanganui

Ban smokes to protect dairies

Absolutely agree with the opinion piece by Sunny Kaushal. Ban cigarettes and limit vapes available at dairies to mint, menthol or tobacco flavour.

Indeed it is the smoke of cigarettes that kills, not the nicotine. I would however like to suggest that the reason New Zealand got through two world wars and the Great Depression without people smashing up dairies, is because in those scenarios everyone had nothing much - even the corner dairy.

HANS MIRIAM KNUCKEY

Whanganui

What’s in a name?

The article in Wednesday’s paper re: our health system is so correct. Our health minister has lived up to his name. In fact, he has done very little, done it to perfection and the unfortunate thing is his name and what doesn’t get sorted properly is growing like a wart.

GRAHAM HOLLOWAY

Whanganui