Various news stories have criticisms on National’s replacement for Labour’s Three + Waters.
Most of them talk about what it will cost and that ratepayers will have to pay more.
One question that the media doesn’t ask, or at least doesn’t report the answer to, is who would have paid for Labour’s scheme and how much?
What started as Three Waters grew and the costs of its multiple layers of bureaucracy would have grown too.
The organisations that were to appoint board-appointment committees that in turn were to appoint advisory panels would not have been working for nothing.
Redundancy for two water reform chief executives cost $710,000. Keeping them to oversee the bureaucracy would have cost more.
Three Waters was a complicated and expensive system. That the costs of it weren’t going to be paid by money fairies appears to have escaped media coverage.
Water infrastructure needs funding and under Local Water Done Well we’ll be paying either through rates or water charges. But we’ll be paying for the infrastructure and not the multiple layers of bureaucracy Labour was going to impose on us as well.
Homepaddock 
Taumata Arowai has to go too or at least the people inhabiting the offices of this organisation must go – they are not genuine appointees but rather mostly Mahuta sycophants and I think some are even Mahuta family members.
If there is merit in retaining the concept of Taumata Arowai then all incumbents should be stood down and new applications for the required positions advertised. I expect the number required could be at least halved and the incumbents (Labour/Mahuta appointees) would compete with new applicants for the positions.
It is my view if we do not do the above the rort that was 3/5/10/All/Mahuta Waters will continue to fester and impact adversely on all New Zealanders.
LikeLike
[…] Questions media dosen’t ask […]
LikeLike
I am asking self if the unemployed would have eventually been placed on treadmills to operate the massive bureaucracy involved in all the empires built by Labour to create energy savings needed to fulfil the Paris accord targets.
Or would that have been deemed “UNfair”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The question we should be asking is around the water quality targets. These set the costs. Are we trying to do too much too quickly especially for councils that take and put water in an out of rivers. There is a huge cultural objection to treated waste water, and a drive to meet swimming standards which are either impossible to achieve or cost too much to achieve. ive never seen the cost benefit equation considered properly around water quality, cultural influences and ability to pay being considered
LikeLike