The Star: September 16, 2021
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Star</strong> Thursday <strong>September</strong> <strong>16</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
20<br />
LETTERS<br />
Latest Canterbury news at starnews.co.nz<br />
Readers respond to last week’s article on the proposed Three Waters reform and whether the<br />
city council residents’ survey should have had a yes or no question on the plan<br />
I am writing to express my<br />
strong opposition to the<br />
proposed Three Waters scheme.<br />
This proposal represents a<br />
terrible attack on our democratic<br />
process.<br />
This looks like an attempt<br />
to rush through the transfer<br />
of control of our $6.8 billion<br />
asset to an unelected body of<br />
Wellington bureaucrats who<br />
would not be accountable to us.<br />
I expect that the cost of our<br />
water would be increased every<br />
year and we would not be able to<br />
replace ineffective management,<br />
unlike what we enjoy now<br />
with the democratic process<br />
of electing city councillors. –<br />
Victoria Sinclair<br />
I am disappointed with<br />
the lack of basic information<br />
in the council survey and as<br />
noted no clear indication in<br />
favour or not, with a simple yes<br />
or no, which would be more<br />
balanced, as a survey rather<br />
than being loaded with nebulous<br />
irrelevances.<br />
It is obvious to many, that this<br />
is one of ‘Cindy’s’ ploys under<br />
her He Puapua 50/50 initiatives<br />
to gift these water resources to<br />
Maori.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se resources have in<br />
reality been paid for by many<br />
generations of ratepayers. – A<br />
White<br />
I strongly oppose this asset<br />
grab on the grounds as a<br />
pensioner and the associated rate<br />
rise that will come.<br />
On a fixed income and<br />
continual rates, insurance,<br />
energy, food, transport cost<br />
increases, where is this money<br />
going to come from? <strong>The</strong> politics<br />
and racial discrimination on<br />
this topic are another matter<br />
altogether. – Peter Clark<br />
Even if the city council of the<br />
Three Waters and Waste requires<br />
more information before the<br />
yes/no option is included in<br />
the community survey, the<br />
constituents don’t.<br />
It is obvious what Minister<br />
Mahuta wants, especially so<br />
when she consistently refused<br />
to answer on Q&A, whether she<br />
would compulsorily take control<br />
of her Three Waters scheme,<br />
whether the constituents and the<br />
councils voted for her scheme or<br />
not.<br />
This means she is going to<br />
get her own way come what may.<br />
Fresh water is not owned by<br />
anyone, or possibly owned by<br />
all of us, not just a select few but<br />
that is not what the minister<br />
wants.<br />
So we need plain yes or no,<br />
and if the vote is no, and the<br />
city council votes no, Minister<br />
Mahuta is likely to invoke<br />
compulsory control and then<br />
give ultimate control to a nonelected<br />
organisation.<br />
Time will tell. – R Williams<br />
Please please don’t sell our<br />
local water assets to the state.<br />
We must keep control of our<br />
own affairs.<br />
If the state tries to run this<br />
it will fail or become such an<br />
expensive bureaucracy.<br />
It will also take more time for<br />
the council having to deal with<br />
another middle layer and iwi.<br />
I just can’t see any benefit. –<br />
Alan Roberts<br />
As a ratepayer I do not support<br />
the value proposition the<br />
Government is making for the<br />
three waters reform.<br />
Essentially they are proposing<br />
that they will purchase assets<br />
that have been paid for over<br />
generations by ratepayers for a<br />
fraction of their value.<br />
<strong>The</strong> water supply for<br />
Christchurch is pristine<br />
and unmatched and the city<br />
council should do everything<br />
in it’s power to maintain<br />
ownership and control of<br />
this asset for the benefit of<br />
the ratepayers and people of<br />
Christchurch.<br />
Central government has<br />
already demonstrated that<br />
they prefer a one-size fits all<br />
way of making decisions in<br />
relation to water (chlorine)<br />
which may have benefits in low<br />
quality rural water schemes<br />
but is entirely unnecessary for<br />
Christchurch.<br />
Central government has<br />
also consistently shown that<br />
consultation is a not process by<br />
which they listen to feedback. –<br />
Alan Geraghty<br />
Clearly the city council survey<br />
should have had a simple yes<br />
or no option/response to the<br />
planned water changes. My vote<br />
is for a very big no.<br />
Why would we possibly<br />
consider handing over $6.9<br />
billion of water-based assets<br />
to a Government controlled<br />
board of one entity for 21 local<br />
authorities.<br />
This proposal is just so wrong.<br />
– Eric Dally<br />
SEPTEMBER <strong>2021</strong><br />
24 SEPT - 3 OCT <strong>2021</strong><br />
SEPTEMBER <strong>2021</strong><br />
Head to a participating eatery over the festival,<br />
order the SCOFF special and bein to win great<br />
prizes including goody bags, vouchers and a<br />
weekend escape to South Canterbury.<br />
MACKENZIE · TIMARU · WAIMATE<br />
Learn more at scoffsc.nz<br />
EAT<br />
DRINK<br />
SAVOUR<br />
ENJOY