There’s much to suggest that our politicians’ justifications for their ‘Three Waters’ proposal are merely cynical manipulations of data and emotion, disguising a strategy to create the pretext for forcing upon our nation a solution to a problem which doesn’t exist.
Further evidence perhaps of our Representatives’ words creating a growing uncertainty around what the true motivation, objective, outcome and consequences of their proposals might actually be.
The ideological fervour underlying their drive to remove this critical infrastructure from direct territorial ownership suggests rather a ploy to tacitly repurpose our constitutional Westminster parliamentary democracy, in effect, detouring the State by handing over the total inherent financial and political power of this resource, to a prejudicial adjunct.
This belligerent disingenuous ideological project offends our hard-won system of government, long-matured to protect against the abuses of excessive centralised power and the stagnating impoverishment of divisive nepotism.
For what reason, if truly seeking to advance the beneficial progress of all, is this government unwilling to offer advice, expertise and resource, if actually needed, to the current owners, in ways which will sustain, rather than endanger, our cherished lawful traditions and enjoyment of ownership; the rights and protections, expressed thereby, remaining intact?
Rees Sutcliffe,
East Tamaki Heights
