Both the rural and urban communities are implicated in that reticence and there are now elements of younger members of our society that condemn previous generations for their inaction.
It's easy to acknowledge the importance of agriculture in this country's history; and the role it plays in our economic wellbeing, predicated as it is on the vagaries of international trade.
And I can also acknowledge the devastating factors that farmers face in dealing with floods, droughts, and storms. Additionally, it's not beyond my imagination to realise that generational farmers have a deep love of the land and an appreciation of its environs.
But when Mr Cranstone asserts that the Government is "imposing unworkable regulations on farmers, businesses and communities without any genuine consultation", he is in fact acknowledging that consultation has occurred. Whether or not it was "genuine" is a matter of opinion.
When considering the question of the "unworkable regulations on businesses and communities", I would simply remind Mr Cranstone that the rural communities have been profoundly implicated in the decades of failure on matters concerning the rural environment and therefore his indignation should be tempered by that realisation.
Additionally, there has also been a massive failure of regional and local body councils (with its considerable business representation) to meet infrastructure demands that are associated with water reticulation. The public money that has been allocated for our most important of services hasn't been adequate, and never will be if the current system isn't changed.
There is a need for change.
For brevity's sake, I won't make any further argumentative points except to say that the Three Waters proposal, before its implementation, has greater potential for wider and more effective consultation than has ever been evident in the past.
Preliminary consultation has taken place. The decision to establish four entities has been made. All sectors of our society; rural, urban, iwi, local bodies and industry, will now have the opportunity to participate in constructive dialogue with the working group to ensure that the Three Waters programme delivers for all New Zealanders.
Here's a precis of what the Minister of Local Government, Nanaia Mahuta, had to say:
- For the past two decades central and local government have discussed with councils the challenges to deliver services.
- To delay further will only push the problem on, increase future household costs and put livelihoods at risk.
- To replace, maintain and upgrade existing pipes across New Zealand it is estimated that it will cost up to $5 billion per year for the next 30 to 40 years.
- The proposed new entities will have access to cheaper loans to fund the necessary work.
- Local governments are trying to deal with the upkeep of ageing infrastructure, which is literally crumbling in some of our biggest cities. They face additional strains of growing population, climate change resilience and extreme weather events, as well as competing for a limited number of workers to do the job.
- For decades, councils have had to make difficult trade-offs between investing in critical infrastructure services or the other services central to the well being of their communities.
The entities contained in the Three Waters scheme will have the sole focus of providing drinking, waste and stormwater infrastructure to the communities they serve.
- There will be four public-owned service entities and for these to be successful we need all councils to participate.
- The services will continue to belong to the communities they serve. It is anticipated that the plan will take effect in three years' time.
- The Government will continue to work with Local Government, Iwi, and industry to refine the finer details over the coming months and years.
- The new arrangement will help build a highly-skilled, innovative workforce to deliver the right services for our community.
- The Government knows that the work must remain local, and:
- It will create 6000 to 9000 jobs and increase economic activity in our rural communities.
What's wrong with that? It seems to make sense to me. Farmers should welcome the opportunity to give effective voice as part of a process that establishes the potential to provide concrete results that will enable them to effect meaningful and appropriate change.
