Three Waters provision wrong and dangerous

By today, the Labour Government will probably have passed a law that takes Dunedin’s water infrastructure assets out of the hands of its ratepayers and gives it to a barely accountable central body that will combine all council water assets in the South Island.

I’ve previously called it state-sponsored theft and I stand by that comment.

I didn’t think it could get any worse, but last week the Government added an entrenchment provision, binding future Parliaments and requiring 60% of MPs to vote in favour of any amendment on the privatisation of the water entities.

The outcry from opposition parties and constitutional lawyers was loud and clear, and the Government has done a swift about-face.

Entrenchment provisions are almost always reserved for electoral matters, and the Government appears to have been either disrespectful of the constitutional convention or, more concerning, lacked an understanding of the change they made.

Either way, it is wrong and dangerous.

And what of the left’s concern that a future National Government might privatise water assets? This is a classic "false flag".

The potential for privatisation by governments only exists because of this legislation.

National won’t privatise because it opposes and will repeal this legislation, returning control to the ratepayers who paid for the assets, and keeping them away from central government.

I have every confidence the Dunedin City Council would not entertain privatisation, but if they did, that would be a matter between councils and ratepayers.

We have much more to fear from a Labour Government that thinks it can take assets away from ratepayers without compensation and plays fast and loose with constitutional conventions.

National has more respect for ratepayers and will repeal the Three Waters legislation.

As this is my last column for 2022, may I wish all readers a merry Christmas and a happy and safe festive season.