Yesterday in Question Time, Rodney Hide wasn’t there, so Associate Local Government Minister John Carter answered questions from Brendon Burns and me about the Government’s water privatisation bill.
And for the first time we got a straight answer from the Government. When I asked: Does the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill allow private ownership of water infrastructure for up to 35 years?, John Carter said yes.
Could these two things be related?
Only the other day, Rortney was on the radio repeating that John Key had ruled out privatisation. So who’s lying? Key, Hide or Carter?
Anyway its not Privatisation. You see its really Liberation. All that water was captured by nasty incompetent beurocrats and so we are Liberating it for a better future with a freedom of choice to be or not to be slaves to Councils. Tis true!
Water is a more valuable national resource than this country’s national parks. And you can even go without electricity for 4 or 5 days no big deal.
Private ownership of such infrastructure is in place now and was set up by Labour in 2002.
I think it’s disgusting having business profiting off something that is essential to human life!
Absolutely related, no Rodney no evasion
I see the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is in its first reading. Can anyone hazard a guess of how long it will be before it gets rammed through its third reading under Urgency?
Sean, it seems this bill isnt going to get the urgency treatment. The select committee has called for submissions and they close June 18.
Gooner – well in this case, its definitely not the right thing to do and am glad Labour is taking a close look at it.
@ Gooner – Not so. The 2002 Local Government Act allows water services to be contracted to private sector for no longer than 15 years, and does not allow private ownership of municipal water infrastructure during or after the contracting period.
Sure, so they’ve simply extended the period and added infrastructure. What’s the fuss over those?
it seems this bill isnt going to get the urgency treatment
Really Phil, that’s a surprise. Is Gerry Brownlee feeling unwell?
@ Sean – He should be, given what has been happening on the mining front.
Many people are uncomfortable in believing this govt would do such a thing, and so find rejection of this idea and believing the platitudes of the smiling predator a more consoling position.
He has not said No Privatisation Tomorrow.
Wake up before a law is passed preventing collection from your roof.
Will spot pricing make your glass of water dearer when rainfall is low.
Supply management for optimisation of best spot prices for profit is recently evident in electricity supply. How will water be different.
Public infrastructure is a preferred capitalist venture.
@ Gooner 1.49 – Gooner, its clearly no problem for you and Rodney, and whoever else is left of the ACT membership. But most Kiwis dont want our water infrastructure owned and run by private interests (even if does have to be handed back to Councils after 35 years).
35 years is such a ridiculous amount of time, quite literally half a lifetime… Is Labour going to repeal this when next in office..?
Haven’t yet made a decision on that Jeremy…but you can make your own prediction based on the strength of our public opposition to it.
Don’t forget the profits from cleaning the water polluted by friends…
Weird idea, and for no genuine public purpose. Water privatization failed in the UK: the only people to benefit were the handful of Thatcher cronies appointed to the various boards.
Water isn’t rocket science. First and obviously, it is a monopoly. Secondly and cash wise – governments can always borrow cheaper than the private sector. There is not much real ‘policy’ involved – the engineers sorted out the basics decades ago.
There is no reason to privatize water, except to allow monopoly profits to be creamed by the NACT mates.
If that’s the case, why did Labour privatise water services in 2002 for a period of 15 years?
Gooner, I thought our position was pretty clear by now. Your mate is making two key changes that in our view go too far:
1. allowing private ownership of water infrastructure assets
2. extending the contracting time limit from 15 to 35 years.
Imagine how old we’ll all be by the time that expires
61 for me… Rodney will probably be goneburger by then…
And Labour will probably have governed many times during that period so can change the law if they don’t like it.
Nothing to worry about chaps. The sun still rose this morning and the clock is still turning.
Gooner – there seems to be a big difference, for me, between Labour’s move and NACTS. Labour envisaged an elected body (Local government) determining the best way to maximise its assets for the benefit of those it serves.
NACT through the SuperCity is passing that power to the CCO’s, which contain a majority of Local Govt Minister or Transport Minister appointed members and only 2 locally elected.
I hope that helps.
Watercare is a CCO Tracey. And as I say, Labour will undoubtedly govern within the next 35 yrs so will just change it anyway.
Hey Red Alert, any chance of taking me out of moderation now? I made a silly comment once and now go into moderation every time; it seems a bit silly.
ta.
Gooner is Watercare majorly governed by non elected officials?