Winston Peters “opposes National’s deceptive, divisive, ideological and racist policy on fresh water”

Winston Peters press release-Winston

“One thing New Zealanders have learnt about the Key Government is the need for constant vigilance – in this case, against a toxic cocktail of blind ideology and naivety,” says Rt Hon Winston Peters.

“National Ministers Bill English and Nick Smith have been holding negotiations behind closed doors with the powerful Iwi Leaders Group to carve up fresh water resources.

“Once again, National is doing a deal to disadvantage New Zealanders as a whole. The idea is to give iwi preferential rights – in perpetuity – to fresh-water resources.

“The Government’s agenda is clear. What is now in the public domain – a collective asset that we hold in common– our freshwater resources – are to handed to the favoured few.

“We say New Zealand’s fresh water resources are the birthright of all New Zealanders. We strongly oppose National’s deceptive, divisive, ideological and now race based policy in relation to New Zealand’s fresh water resources.

“None of this will help the majority of New Zealanders or Maori. But it should be a serious wake up call to National Party voters everywhere.”

That all sounds good but I’ve left out the parts where he rails against privatisation, of power companies and other govt entities. Its always the same with Winston, in that he only seems to see half the problem or half the solution. These are the parts against privatisation-

“These discussions were forced on the Government once the Prime Minister, against the majority view, began privatising power companies whose only real asset is New Zealand’s water. Maori quickly demanded that if private interests could own our water why couldn’t they?”

“This is just like those rights given to private interests. These rights could then be sold to those needing water for irrigation, hydropower and other commercial uses.

“National has a long track record when it comes to selling out the New Zealand public and transferring New Zealand’s assets to foreign ownership.

“When fresh water resources have been allocated to iwi, and other groups, the road will be clear for yet more of New Zealand’s sovereignty to be lost to foreigners.”

If he’d just gone with the statements in the top half I would be fine with it, but he has to go off on a tangent and mix other stuff in there that is almost communistic in nature. I support privatisation. I have no great beef with foreign investment as long as its not from countries bent on communist colonisation. Winston would have to make that kind of distinction before I’d ever consider voting for him.



Categories: NZ Politics

Tags: ,

5 replies

  1. Redbaiter,

    I disagree with your analysis on the 2nd part of your article. There is nothing wrong per se of government having a financial interest in critical items of infrastructure, especially when they are of national security interest.

    I mean look at Singapore and everything the State of Singapore holds through Temasek Holdings. The difference is though that in general the Singaporean holdings are run along strictly commercial lines.

    The difference from bitter experience in NZ is that S.O.E.s were run for political objectives – to maintain the illusion of full employment. Nowadays not doubt they would be run to encourage “diversity” or “inclusiveness” or foster “social change”…..That is where the problem starts……

    Like

  2. There is only one real answer to most questions about Singapore and it is Lee Kuan Yew. They didn’t call him the man of iron for nothing.

    People too often overlook that Singapore has been in a continual state of development and progress. It was nothing when Lee took over but for fifty or sixty years he grew it into one of the most prosperous states in the world.

    His objective was to build Singaporeans a society that brought them wealth and security and he did it in record time against amazing odds.

    He also knew what communist strategies were, (basically Fabian long term incremental white anting of capitalism) and he kept them out of Singapore.

    He was growing and building Singapore, but NZ was already there. In 1960 we were the developed nation that Singapore was yet to become. And we have thrown it all away in an orgy of baby boomer self gratification that will see future generations saddled with debt for half a century or more.

    We have slipped far back from the prosperous country we once were while Singapore has advanced. It didn’t need to happen but it did because unlike Singapore we have a heavy left wing political influence.

    Hong Kong is actually a better example of a free society than Singapore, although now that is governed by China it is in danger. But once again, Hong Kong was established long ago and was never in recent times anyway the mosquito swamp that Singapore was.

    And so is Singapore in danger now that Lee is dead.

    Like

  3. I read an article the other day that showed an image of Singapore vs. Cuba 1950s vs. today. Your words above reminded me off it:

    http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2015/4/7/the-snowden-hologram-markets-versus-the-government.html

    Like

  4. Water is owned by everyone and managed by the Government on behalf of everyone.

    What is so hard about that.

    Like

This is not a forum for the left, so if you're a commie please go elsewhere. New commenters automatically moderated until cleared.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s