Before I launch in today’s story, here is a quick update on my drive to raise $1750 for a new web site.
Yesterday, one more person kindly donated. Total donations so far come to $635. Thank you!
So $1115 to go. Please give. The donors to date are:
Chris $20, RDDB $30, J and Jo $20, TD $50, SC $125, Warrick $100, LR $50, OB family $100, Kim $20, PM and J $20, Miss RA $50, T and K $50
To know more about the new web site, what it’s for, why we need it etc, please click here
Please watch this video
The video is a clip for a select committee meeting. Opponents of 3 waters can go to Parliament to present their objection. Stephen Franks is the lawyer who is talking.
There is one aspect of this video that I would like you to notice.
The wording in the Bill is designed to trick / deceive the public and fellow parliamentarians.
Mahuta and co have said all along “Don’t worry, council’s will still own all the water infrastructure.”
Yet, in this Bill, as uncovered by Stephen Franks, the very opposite is found to be true.
How could this be? Was it just a mistake? No, it was not a mistake.
Mahuta and co had unlimited access to the best lawyers / consultants to draft this bill. She was the orchestra conductor telling them what she wanted.
It was no mistake. Mahuta set out to deceive.
In this submission, Stephen says:
“In other words anything which the Act authorises or directs can override the purported preservation. The section is a legislated LIE. The heading says existing rights are preserved then in the fine print, the text reverses it.”
There you have it. One section of the Bill says councils own all the water infrastructure, but text in the fine print reverses it.
Mahuta was hoping councils would sign off on the legislation, without fully reading the fine print.
What would happen if they did sign off?
Councils, some time after the fact, find out that they were tricked.
What happens then?
A full transcript of what Stephen Franks said here