Say no to 3 waters

[C_T_Russell]

Yes ive read all that and most people will just skim over it without looking deeper.

If they really cared about preventing privatization, then why did they allow the provision for that very thing to happen if 75% of the boards vote to pass that?
There should not be any provision whether voted in or not, it should be legally written to prohibit any sale or transfer of the assets to a commercial enterprise.
One only needs to look to Australia where Chinese corporations control and own water resources over there.

I read in this FAQ that it is 75% of a community public referendum required

[b]How can communities be sure these assets will not be privatised?[/b]
Continued public ownership of these water services is a bottom line for the Government. Safeguards against future privatisation will be written into legislation to maintain ongoing ownership of the new entities by local authorities elected by communities. Beyond that, the Government will make communities the ultimate guardians of public ownership through a public referendum with any future proposal for privatisation requiring 75 per cent of votes in favour to carry it.
Additionally, any surpluses would have to be reinvested in water services to address significant infrastructure deficits, making the entities an unattractive proposition for investors. The involvement of iwi/M─üori, with councils, in the strategic oversight and direction of the entities will enhance these protections.
The new water authorities will exist to ensure safe, affordable, resilient and environmentally responsible supplies of water services for their communities rather than to turn a profit.
https://www.dia.govt.nz/three-waters-ref...privatised

But also here it says 75% of MP's

Another protection against privatisation is entrenchment - a requirement for at least 75 percent of MPs in Parliament to support any proposal to merge or sell any of the entities' assets.

Getting this measure into the law would, however, also require the support of 75 percent of MPs. Mahuta said she had written to all political parties to seek their support.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/466167/three-waters-anti-privatisation-entrenchment-rejected-by-opposition-parties

Not sure either is a likely scenario, but it certainly is not vested in the board members

The 75% of MP's supporting it would be my main concern.
I dont know if the public would be silly enough to support it, but I still honestly dont even see the need to have any provision to sell off to begin with.
Something like water should be written into the constitution that its part of our natural resources and not up for any commercial gain.
Im also worried that they may start charging people who collect rain water for their own use.
There apparently is some provision for this and I know this is a thing in some places overseas.
I know someone in the UK who was charged for "removal" of their rain water from their property and he fought it and won, saying that he never gave their council permission to take rain water off his land and classed it as theft. They have left him alone since.
Thats why some councils are requiring you to divert your storm water from roofs etc onto the street, so they can claim its putting load on their storm water infrastructure.
They make excuses about land slides and are no longer permitting soak holes, etc but we dont even live on a hill or anywhere where it could be a problem!
I think this is the situation this person in the UK was in.