NZ Politics

565 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke

Water filter installation costs raises questions on viability of some rural schemes (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 1 year ago by cloventt to c/politics

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is why we need 3-waters reform. The ones who oppose this (National/Act voters included here) are the ones directly responsible for the vertical climb in local and regional rates we can expect over the coming years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rangelus 1 points 1 year ago

Because, just like the supposed advisory role the Tribunal plays, they will be treated as gospel, and anyone who opposes their recommendations will be screamed down and branded a racist.

75% vote required to do anything my dude.

And what do you think they are going to do that you will oppose? You know co-governance already exists right? Waikato river is run by a co-governance situation (I'll confess I don't know the specifics) that was put in place under National. No problems, no-one trying to disagree with them and being labelled racist.

Besides, the idea that all water, everywhere, was sacred and therefore theirs to control is ridiculous.

First, they won't control it. They will share equal responsibilities to advise the board that controls it. Second, why not? They were here first, worked the land, lived in the areas, relied on the water, etc. Just because "we" came along and said "this is ours now" doesn't mean it wasn't especially important to them. Again, it's not our place to dictate their culture.

Also, stop downvoting everyone who disagrees with you, you petulant child.

Lol