The current government have proposed to seize all three water assets from local and regional councils and put them into four water entities to run those operations.
They are proposing to do this without allowing any reasonable time for the councils to consult with the ratepayers who actually have paid for and own those assets.
Some months back, government announced a one off payment with no strings attached, costing $740 million across New Zealand, to stimulate the economy during the Covid recovery period and all the councils had to do was supply government with a full analysis of its’ current three Waters assets and programmes.
Government has been meeting with Councils and offering to spend up to $2.5 billion on paying for council debt in relation to the ownership of the three waters assets but in effect this amounts to little more than a few cents in the dollar on the value of the assets that they are proposing to seize.
There was a series of meetings held with Mayors around the country with the key message from governments PR team being; “we have proven the case for change”, with the governments’ position being that participation was optional.
The government kept stating that the case for change had been proven but in fact that is in some doubt when you take into account the reports from some influential consulting firms that have analysed the proposal.
The Australian business consultants Farrierswier warned, “The analysis is high-level and directional and should not be relied on to project actual expenditure, revenue and pricing outcomes.”
The engineering consultancy group Beca expressed concerns that it may underestimate the cost of reforms.
The economic advisors Castalia, warned, “The Government’s policy process appears flawed and is focusing on high-risk options that may not deliver benefits.”
Yet the Minister was still adamant that the project would go ahead and she would not rule out the use of legislation to force councils to adopt the model proposed.
The majority of councils rejected the governments’ plan and given that level of opposition now the Minister has announced that the seizure of the Three Waters assets from councils will be mandatory.
Surely it must be a great thing when you have to legislate to force the people to accept it.
The Manawatu District Mayor, Helen Worboys, has recently stated that to do what the Government has done by mandating the Three Waters policy “just erodes all the trust and faith we had”.
Worboys and her council have started a group of councils around the country who are opposed to the mandatory decision and the Government’s preferred model and they are joining forces to push back against the Government policy decision.
The Manawatu Mayor said that her council was disgusted with the way the Government has handled the proposed Three Waters Reform.
The Government has gone back on promises to engage fully with councils, to allow time for public consultation and to have the option to ‘opt out’ if their communities felt the model would not benefit them.
The Government in July, signed a deal with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) to promote The Three Waters Reform Project. LGNZ is the body that is supposed to represent the councils throughout NZ and advocate on their behalf with the government yet the government through this deal was offering funding to allow LGNZ convince their members to agree to the scheme.
The deal with the government which was signed off by the executives of LGNZ without any consultation with the members of LGNZ, in effect, means that LGNZ is being paid by the government to help get a successful outcome in relation to the Three Waters Reform Program.
Mayor Worboys stated that they were organising a national campaign against the decision to seize the assets and said that even though the councils had followed the government game plan in relation to three waters consultation, the government had not listened; had not answered the council’s questions and did not seem at all interested in working together with the councils to find an acceptable solution.
There is much anger about what they see as a one-size-fits-all approach with no acknowledgment from the minister that most councils in New Zealand currently do have good-quality drinking water.
The Minister stated that the government has to make the Three Waters policy mandatory as that’s the only way that we’re going to get good water quality yet the Department of Internal Affairs has rated Manawatu District Council’s water infrastructure as ‘exceeding expectations’. There has been no acknowledgement from the minister that many councils have good infrastructure.
The Government spent $3.5 million on an advertising campaign which portrayed green slime and frogs coming out of the country’s taps and this has been seen as totally untrue and also insulting to councils and their staff.
Many councils have planned and invested well in their infrastructure and they’ve budgeted for maintenance and development and yet the government has indicated that they believe there has been no planning or budgeting done. That is totally wrong. Most councils have got multi-year asset management plans and budgets in place.
Mayor Worboys said that she understood that there are some councils that will need help to meet required standards and she has no problem with that.
The Government is going to take the assets off the current councils and place them into four water entities so that those bodies can then in government speak “gain economies of scale” and allow for the water suppliers to borrow up to $180 billion which councils could not do.
But in fact this is more about subsidising those councils that have, either not done any forward planning and budgeting, or that don’t have enough ratepayers to fund that infrastructure upgrade that is required.
Mayor Worboys said, “And our ratepayers are going ‘what?’ We’ve got some of the highest urban rates in NZ here in Feilding. Why? Because we’ve invested in the future and now we are going to be expected to pay more to help subsidise those other councils who haven’t.
She stated that councils are not saying that they won’t make changes and in fact they are saying ‘absolutely, we’ll look at smarter ways of doing things’, but to do what the Government has done just erodes all the trust and the faith that we had. The only way now is for councils to come together and push back.
Worboys says the Government’s decision to use the select committee process rather than push legislation through under urgency is an opportunity for people to stand up and have a say.
Currently a steering group of motivated councils are working together to decide how the pushback plan will work, what it will look like, who should lead it and what expertise is needed.
They have only had a couple of meetings but the word is spreading.
Andy Loader