“The Auditor-General’s comments on Labour’s divisive Three Waters should be the final nail in the coffin for the widely-rejected reforms,” says ACT’s Local Government spokesperson Simon Court.

“The Auditor-General raised serious concerns about the reforms, noting they “could have an adverse effect on public accountability, transparency, and organisational performance.”

“This adds to the mountain of negative feedback Labour has received on this policy. Councils and ratepayers have rejected Three Waters because central government is barging in and taking control of their assets. Labour is bulldozing through all opposition though.

“ACT has made a commitment – if Labour steals it, ACT will repeal it. It will be gone within our first 100 days of government.

“The worst aspect of the reforms is divisive co-governance. It's totally inappropriate to give iwi a seat at the table just because of who their ancestors were. All New Zealanders want clean and safe water, not just iwi. This issue isn’t solved by separating stormwater.

“While Labour is determined to push ahead with this bad law making, ACT has highlighted a better way of doing things.

“ACT’s Water Infrastructure Plan would:

• Return assets to Councils
• Provide for councils to enter into voluntary “shared services” agreements, gaining the benefits of scale, while retaining local ownership and control
• Establish long term 30-year Central Government-Local Government Partnership agreements to plan water infrastructure upgrades tailored to specific regions
• Establish Public-Private Partnerships to attract investment from financial entities such as KiwiSaver funds, ACC, iwi investment funds, etc
• Expand the exemption from domestic supply for a single dwelling to also include all small water suppliers sup plying fewer than 30 endpoint users.

“ACT’s plan will better balance community control of water assets alongside a plan for levelling up the necessary infrastructure to ensure safety and efficient water allocation. It won’t show contempt for taxpayers by using their money to force a policy they have rejected upon them.”

Home Page | Politics | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media