Yesterday's parliamentary report that slammed the policy of using Metrowater as a 'cash cow' to fund other Council spending is right on the mark.
Access to water is a basic right, necessary for human health and dignity. The policy of requiring Metrowater to make profits, which then get used by Council for other services is strongly opposed by City Vision. Our comprehensive policy on water states this clearly:
"Water and wastewater will be charged to fund a financially and environmentally sustainable service and not be a source of profit to subsidise other Council activities"
The Herald and Brian Rudman all report that "City Vision and Citizens & Ratepayers, are promising to abolish the policy (of using Metrowater to subsidise other services)".
While City Vision's policy is clear, C&R's behaviour on the issue is hypocritical in the extreme. C&R are attempting to make as much political capital out of the water issue as possible, yet at the first opportunity to actually vote for a change of direction , C&R councillors last night block voted against a motion put forward by City Vision Councillor Neil Abel that would have made Council take the select committee report into account at the Annual Plan setting meeting.
If C&R want to stop Metorwater being made to run a profit, why oppose this motion?
Only a vote for City Vision will ensure that Council will stop using Metrowater as a cash cow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
But you've done the complete opposite for the last three years?
Isn't it hypocritical to only change your tune now that elections loom?
This is a fair question given events over the past year.
It is no secret that there was a major disagreement between City Vision's former leader Bruce Hucker, and City Vision about water policy - with Dr Hucker strongly in support of requiring Metrowater to make a profit.
City Vision felt so strongly opposed to this stance that in the end we parted company with Dr Hucker, first as our leader, and then even as a candidate. Trust me, you need to feel very strongly and genuinely about an issue to change your leader over it.
Because of this disagreement you are right to point out that City Vision's past position on the issue has not been clear. However it now is. The policy is there in black and white and all candidates are committed to it - unlike C&R who have no such policy and refused to back the motion this week to take the select committee report into account.
What about the previous year - 2006? Did City Vision vote for those water price increases?
Post a Comment