Here is our second Three Waters flyer-2 to urge the public to take action to ensure ratepayers have a say over whether their community water services and assets are transferred to the Government's iwi-controlled water authorities.
The Prime Minister claimed, “Agencies used every tool available to protect innocent people from this individual. Every legal avenue was tried”. But neither mental health support, Court-ordered psychological assessments, nor rehabilitation appear to have taken place.
I acknowledge that police surveillance and monitoring are key components in community safety and national security. But they do not result in rehabilitation. In fact, they could arguably encourage reoffending.
As it stands the Three Waters proposal is irrational from every perspective, but one. The only rational reason for this deeply flawed upheaval is to use it as a smokescreen to pass ownership and control of water to Maori tribal interests. The Government has no mandate for that course of action – it is completely unacceptable.
What other councils do around New Zealand is up to them however engagement with all ratepayers and a public referendum in every district would allow our residents and ratepayers who have along with their families over generations paid for these three water assets to make the decision to opt in or out.
My first reaction to the "compelling" financial benefits claimed by Minister Mahuta was scepticism, for two reasons. First, the figures seem too good to be true. And second, as someone familiar with discounted cash flow analysis, I'm aware that minor "adjustment" to an underlying assumption can result in a significantly different result - the difference between a favourable or unfavourable recommendation.
This brief analysis exposes the extent to which the He Puapua agenda is undermining all of the four pillars of our democracy. With Maori now over-presented in Parliament, and Labour’s Maori Caucus gaining control of its Executive wing, their radical influence in Cabinet is now permeating throughout the government service, the judiciary, and even the media.
The Judicial oath requires the newly appointed judge to discharge the office “without fear or favour affection or ill will.” It is well established that any criticism of a judge’s decisions should be moderate, factual, and tempered with respect. The consequences of a loss of public confidence in the office of Judge are incalculable.