In my last contribution I was critical of National and some of its MPs for the way Maureen Pugh was treated by the party. There has been sufficient written since in a similar vein to back up my stance. This is never likely to be an election issue and will soon blow over. While not comparing apples with apples, National has gone a long way to redeeming itself with the release of its Three Waters policy.
National deserves plaudits for coming up with a policy which is the opposite of Labour’s. The most important point to make is it illustrates the difference, in all legislative areas, between the two main parties. Everything Labour does is all about centralisation and hordes of public servants sitting at desks shuffling copious amounts of paper. These people, with no disrespect to the 14,000 already added since Labour came to power, add nothing to the productivity of the country.
What we are seeing now that both parties have released their policies is the stark difference in mindset. Labours is a mix of increasing bureaucracy and pandering to the Maori elites. This is why Tuku Morgan is so incensed with National’s plan. He is completely, thank goodness, left high and dry.
He complains there is no partnership. What he really means is he’s no longer in charge.
This, of course, means in his eyes it is a racist policy. It isn’t. Like all public assets, they perform best when run in a business-like manner. Councils will have the responsibility of looking after their own water infrastructure and rates collected for water will have to be ring-fenced for that purpose. This is the model Auckland Council has in place. Councils will have to levy the money they think they require and a government-appointed regulator will hold them to account.
Compare that to Mr Morgan and others of his ilk laying down the law to Councils and thousands of bureaucrats implementing his instructions. No thank you. I believe this is the first of a number of policies from National that will highlight the philosophical difference between it and the government. Likewise, ACT. By the time of the election, I think the choice of who to vote for will not be a difficult one. It’s got to be National or ACT if we want a change of government.
I am aware of the sceptics on this site, some of whom won’t be convinced until they see National follow through but I believe they will. What we are talking about here are fundamental differences. National never believed in centralisation and a bloated public service. They have very different ideas on how to achieve productivity gains for this country. They are totally opposed to the co-governance model. They don’t believe in any policy that promotes a divided country.
Winston has already said he won’t go with Labour. Can he be trusted? I think the answer is yes and for this reason. By the time of the election, he will find he has far more in common with National’s policies than Labour’s ones.
Winston is astute enough to know that once bitten twice shy. He will have worked out that the ‘handbrake principle’ might be a short-term solution but is not applicable to the long term. That is not to say he deserves support.
National is to be congratulated on formulating a policy that is concise in its detail and is close to what those of us opposed to Labour’s policy could have hoped for. Co-governance is gone and there is also a provision for Councils that are having difficulty funding their water infrastructure improvements. I watched Simon Watts, National’s Local Government spokesman, on TV One and he was very impressive. He batted away Ms Mutch McKay’s biased observations with ease and with substance.
As I said earlier, this policy highlights the fundamental difference between the two parties. Poor decisions should be lambasted but, equally, plaudits should be given where they are due. In my view, National are due a big ‘thank you’ from those of us unhappy with Labour’s shonky and underhand legislation. It needs to be repealed and, make no mistake, National will do just that. You watch.
