Thought for today Three Waters neglect

Ian Davey Motueka, May 2 Anton Hyman Nelson, May 10

The fact that both our mayor and Nelson electorate MP are blindly supporting the Government’s Three Waters reforms knowing that most ratepayers are opposed shows how poorly served Nelsonians are by these two important office holders.

We are all aware that Mayor Reese is an accomplice of Minister Mahuta and was handpicked to sit on that Ministers Working Group despite calls for her not to.

Of course Rachel Boyack is party ‘‘cannon fodder’ and just does what she is told by Ardern. She has abrogated her responsibility to represent the Nelson Electorate to its best of her ability, which she promised when elected, and has totally failed to consult with Nelson constituents which is a disgrace.

Both of course will eventually pay the price for ‘‘walking out’’ on Nelsonians and that will be deserved.

Neville Male

Stoke, May 9

Nelson mayor Rachel Reese replies: I have been a member of an independent working group on Three Waters Reform that was chaired by Doug Martin.

We had the opportunity to provide unconstrained advice to the government. The working group fully considered suggestions and alternative options put forward by local government and iwi Māori colleagues, and listened to their concerns. No-one who spoke to the working group asked for the status quo to remain. Everyone accepted there is a major problem to resolve.

In its final report the working group recommended a significant number of changes. Of the 47 recommendations – the Government agreed to 44 in full, partially and in principle – with three that need to be worked on further. The proposed legislation has been amended accordingly and significant improvements have been made to the Government’s model as a result of this independent advice.

Everyone will have their chance to have their say once the bill is published either via feedback to the council or directly to the select committee. The council will ensure this opportunity is widely circulated via local media.

Nelson MPRachel Boyack replies: ‘‘Let’s remember that these reforms are fundamentally about safe drinking water. It is unacceptable that 34,000 New Zealanders get sick from drinking water each year. Councils have done their best to invest in Three Waters infrastructure, however the cost to fix, upgrade and maintain our water services is estimated to rise to $185 billion over 30 years. Currently 43 of the 67 councils don’t have the revenue to cover their water services operating expenditures, let alone fix the infrastructure. In Nelson costs for ratepayers are predicted to increase to $2,330 annually by 2051. In Tasman these costs increase to $6,760 annually.

The proposals will safeguard public ownership of our water assets and save each household thousands. In Nelson households will save up to $1,070 per year, while in Tasman this number is $5,500 per year. Without change, wewill have broken pipes, outdated sewage plants, and potential repeats of the Havelock North gastroenteritis outbreak that killed four people and made thousands sick. We should expect better in a first-world country. As your MP, I have a responsibility to ensure that future generations are not lumped with exorbitant costs and failing infrastructure. I will continue to advocate for safe drinking water, public ownership of our assets and lower costs for ratepayers in Nelson.’’

Better way ‘hijacked’

In reply to P Lunberg (Letters, April 26), yes, there is a better way, but our parliamentary system has been hijacked by the ‘‘Westminster party system’’ that has no constitutional standing in law.

Arthur Chresby a specialist in constitutional law and former member of the Queensland

Parliament wrote the booklet ‘‘Your Will Be Done’’ to inform the voters and expose the sham. Chresby states: ‘‘party leaders and controllers demand absolute loyalty to the party and insist on voting being on party lines’’ and to ‘‘control the votes and voices of Members of Parliament as well as the machinery of Parliament.’’

High Court judges have stated ‘‘that coercion or restraint destroys or imperils that function of freedom of advice ... which is fundamental in the very constitution of Parliament.’’ By voting on strict party lines an MPis in serious breach of the law and contempt of court, and if censured, the penalty is removal from office. If interference at voting time renders the votes invalid - null and void - surely if parties demand absolute loyalty of MPs to vote as directed, is this not contempt of court?

An ugly future

Global warming is now upon us, so what is ‘‘The Good, The Bad and The Ugly’’ in this regard? Well, ‘‘The Good’’ are those trying to reduce greenhouse gases. ‘‘The Bad’’ are those devoted to expelling it through their car exhaust pipes and ‘‘The Ugly’’ is the resulting future.