On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 19:18:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<
lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/131328117/damien-grant-why-we-need-to-stand-up-for-the-maureen-pughs-of-the-world
It takes a non-journalist to show how it should be done.
I agree Tony, the story has always been more about Luxon and his lack
of real leadership. National signed us up for the international
Climate Change agreement before Luxon was in parliament, but when he
became leader of the National Party, all the focus for Luxon was on
poll ratings, so he tried to agree with everyone. His line on climate
change ws that yes there is an agreement but we do not need to do
anything at present, or we need to move slowly - he needed to get the
support of anyone at all - including those who he fundamentally
disagreed with, like the less extreme Covid sceptics and anti-vaxxers,
and farmers who wanted to keep sending nitrates downstream, etc, etc.
Far right libertarians like Damien Grant, Jordan Williams and David
Farrar were happy with that - they share a wish to do away with the
top tax rate, and Luxon has been steadfast on that as well.
So what went wrong? I suspect it was the slim possibiity of being
elected that made Luxon listent to someone and found out how much New
Zealand would have to pay for not meeting climate change targets. That
alone would have made him wonder what sort of constraints there may be
on dropping that top tax rate - he knows that there is a huge demand
for money to bring our health sector back from the years of neglect
under Key/English (who wanted the private sector to take over . . .).
Then we had the floods, and National were being told by their voters
that it was climate change. Put the two together and Luxon decided to
change course. But he did not think to tell his team - and poor
Maureen Pugh was left high and dry - she did not realise the spin line
had changed - but she soon realised that the authoritarian nature of
the Nats meant that when the leader changed his mond, you changed
yours as well - she duly did a u-turn within hours. That is the part
Damien Grand and David Seymour do not like, and all it would have
taken is a bit of leadership to avoid that visible evidence of his incompetence.
Now we have the Luxon response to Three Waters - they want it to be
paid for by water users through rates or levies. I can understand that
from Luxon's perspective - he does not want it to stop getting ris of
the top tax rate, but has he thought that through? He owns a number of
houses - and probably knows that landlords will just have to build the
cost of higher rates into rents, and make tenants pay for any water
meter bills. No problem! But it isn't that simple. I quote:
_______________
The problem is that National, when in government, never attempted to
enforce the rule, guidelines and legislation that already existed.
Never dragged councils and councillors into court for dereliction of
duty in not increasing rates to cover the required future of their
water resources. It doesn’t sound like they have the backbone to do it
now as well.
Why do they see to think that scolding councillors will work over the
next 30 years. It never did in the past.
Never helped councils with small or poor ratepayer bases to pay for
their upgrades. National's only contribution to councils water in the
past has been to put limits on what they could borrow to finance these
works. You’ll note that they haven’t mentioned anything about raising
debt ceilings for councils thate they previously imposed?
National just announced they aren't going to do anything significiant.
They're just going to hand the task of an under-resourced and
toothless oversight group that has absolutely no powers to do anything
useful – like capital financing.
Notably there was nothing about new legislation in the area to replace
the legislation they are want to remove – just regulation. That
approach is the useless one that caused the current under funding and
lack of maintenance of water infrastructure.
Notably, they managed to not mention the biggest single issue for
smaller councils. That they cannot afford to hire the expertise to
actually upgrade their water infrastructure. That is one of the key
advantages
National is what you use when you need useless and completely
ineffectual. They certainly delivered that with this pile of waffling. _________________________
That is from
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-25-02-2023/#comment-1936716
and before you condemn the comments because of the source, just think
about what is being said. We have just been through severe storm
effects that will cost a huge amount to recover from - one estimate I
have heard is that between $120 and $185 billion dollars of investment
in three waters (drinking water, waste water and storm water)
infrastructure will be needed over the next 30 years to improve the
quality of our drinking water and wastewater and stormwater
management, across New Zealand.
So ask yourself, has Luxon canvassed his brilliant solution with his
wider team, the National Party members? Since he doesn't appear to
talk to even all his MPs, this seems unlikely. Think about the farmers
in Canterbury. National disbanded ECAN because it was going to ask too
much from the farmers, but now there will be rules about water (which
there already are), but with the stated intention of actually
enforcing them! Some of those farmers are their own Water authority,
but they will be upset about having to reduce the nitrate that they
leach into the underground aquifers and possibly reduce the amount of
water that they take from rivers - if some small town authorities
cannot afford the ascientific and engineering expertise required, how
will an individual farmer faced with having to change away from cattle
herding to reduce emissions and pollution?
Then think about the areas that have been affected by the recent
storms. Managed Retreat is a real possibility in some areas - the
government is wisely raising the issue but giving people time to
adjust to the idea and allowing them to be involved in decisions that
so vitally affect individuals . . . I heard of a home that had piles
1.3 metres long that was inundated and I think condemned.
So we come again to money - when Luxon says that his government would
help Councils raise the money needed, the reality is that they do not
have realisable assets to satisfy a borrower that they will be able to
make interst and capital repayments - the loans may be nominally in
the name of a local authority but if they are to only be charged the
same rate as the government, there would need tobe a solid government
guarantee - it will be easier for government to do the borrowing and
on-lend; either way the risk will be on the Government's balance
sheet. I wonder if Luxon has even had a talk to the new Auckland
Mayor! One thing is for sure, if a National Government is elected,
they would want to be heavily invovled in teh actions taken by
Councils, and may have to accept that some Councils just do not have
the financial resources to raise enough money to do the work required
- and fines for that reason are just ridiculous - ownership can be a
liability . . . .
So Luxons proposals my well be just more smoke and mirrors, designed
to confuse and delay - and those most upset may well be National
supporters . . .
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)