Let’s take a brief look at the whole Three Waters Reform Proposals and we can start by stating exactly why the government has been so intent on pushing this legislation through the house.
This reform is needed to ensure all New Zealanders can enjoy safe, affordable and sustainable drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services – now and in the future. Addressing these issues is essential for the health and well-being of our communities and our environment.
An estimated 34,000 New Zealanders get sick from drinking water annually.
The Minister’s on-going claim that a tsunami of 34,000 people get sick each and every year from drinking contaminated council water is a complete and utter fabrication. It is not based on current health data but on an ESR report estimating the incidence of waterborne gastro-intestinal disease in New Zealand that was prepared for Helen Clark’s Labour Government in 2006!
The 34,000 figure was the upper band of a ‘guestimate’ based on UK statistics because the incidence of disease in New Zealand was insufficient for modelling purposes: “the size of most outbreaks is small, averaging nine cases per outbreak in 2000-2004, and is smaller than any other countries for which data are available.” The author even highlighted the unreliability of his estimates by noting in the report: “The reliability of this method is questioned by the author.”
Apart from one tragic accident in 2016, when farm runoff entered a town water supply during a storm, New Zealand’s freshwater quality has been amongst the highest in the world.
The fact that the Minister is using unreliable sixteen-year-old figures to push her crisis narrative, demonstrates only too clearly that she simply cannot be trusted.
The report in October 2020 said that the Government has decided to push ahead with Three Waters reforms and take control of water services and assets from local councils, despite considerable opposition; “However, the question of future control and governance of the entities and the water assets remained unclear”.
This was a lie from this government! The Three Waters Reform Project clearly stated that the water entities created would be run by boards that would be appointed and that those boards would consist of 50% Maori and 50% others. It also stated that the boards would need a 75% majority to pass any decisions in relation to changes.
It also stated that there was a requirement for the water entities proposed Boards of management to be adequately competent both as a Treaty partner, and with expertise in accessing matauranga Maori, tikanga Maori and Te Ao Maori knowledge to inform the water entities activities?
Right from the start, the Three Waters proposals have always been about giving control of water to Maori. The confiscation of water assets from councils and centralising them into four mega Water Services Entities, introducing ‘co-governance’ arrangements and ‘Te Mana o te Wai
Statements’ were all designed to give control of water to a tribal elite of Maori.
Three Waters is voluntary.
From day one the government’s position was that participation was optional, and every Council took them at their word. 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.
After a large majority of the Councils rejected the proposals Three Waters was declared mandatory by the Labour government.
The true fact of the matter was that the government decided to legislate to steal these assets from their rightful owners, “The Ratepayers who paid for them” and give a fifty percent share of these assets over to the control of Maori.
Ownership of the assets will remain with the councils on behalf of the ratepayers.
It is a fact that if one has no rights in relation to a thing — e.g., no right to use it, to enjoy it, to gain a return from it, to dispose of it, to destroy it, to control it or to control its use — one does not own that thing and this proposal strips local authorities of all the rights of ownership which proves that this claim of ownership is blatantly untrue. It is no more than PR “spin” on a grand scale trying to protect the government’s image. Listing in the legislation alone does not constitute ownership.
The Three Waters Reform Project clearly states that the water entities created will be run by boards that will be appointed and that those boards will consist of 50% Maori and 50% others. It also states that the boards will need a 75% majority to pass any decisions in relation to changes. It also states that there is a requirement for the water entities proposed Boards of management to be adequately competent both as a Treaty partner, and with expertise in accessing matauranga Maori, tikanga Maori and Te Ao Maori knowledge to inform the water entities activities?
So the Minister has stated categorically that this reform will not cost the ratepayers and in fact will save them money on the future costs likely if the reform was not done and that this reform will create 6000 to 9000 jobs and boost the economy by $14 Billion to $23Billion.
The ratepayers who already own the assets will be required to fund the extra jobs and the boost to the economy through their water bills and will face an increase in costs. One example was given for the Westland Council which showed that under the new system of control using the government’s own predicted figures, through the
Three Waters model, that costs for all three waters services would rise by approximately 37%.
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”.
In fact many councils have undertaken their own due diligence to assess the impact of the proposed reforms on their ratepayers and found that the Three Waters Reform Program is based on faulty assumptions and flawed analysis, with the claimed benefits unlikely to materialise.
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.
Implementing the Three Waters proposals under co-governance is necessary in order for the Crown to comply with its obligations under the partnership outlined within the Treaty of Waitangi.
The current Labour government supports the claim that the Treaty of Waitangi contains a partnership agreement between the Crown and Maori and they have decided, without any mandate other than a simple electoral majority, that this will be undertaken through co-governance arrangements between Iwi and the Crown.
There is no partnership requirement included in the Treaty documents.
On the basis of these false assumptions and fabrications, democracy is being sacrificed, and New Zealand returned to tribal rule.
‘Co-governance’ is just another way of describing ‘tribal rule’. It’s ‘sounds’ equitable, even though it’s profoundly discriminatory since it gives tribal minorities veto rights over those representing the majority (87%) of New Zealanders.
Without the reforms we will not have adequate drinking water.
Whether the reforms go ahead in their current proposed format or not, the problems around guarantee of adequate safe drinking water supply do not change. The only difference between the status quo and the reform model is around funding.
The Water Entities Bill had not changed after the public consultation had finished.
The Prime Minister was caught out lying in relation to the changes in the Bill with the late addition of coastal and geothermal waters when she flatly denied that the Bill had become Five Waters. In fact all she needed to do was to read the Bill that was being introduced to the house after its consideration by the select committee and their recommended changes to add geothermal and coastal waters, and she would see that they had actually been added into the bill.
For the Prime Minister to deny observable facts is evidence of either her lying or of her incompetence in not knowing the facts behind what is the most controversial piece of legislation that has been sent into the house in recent history and can only end up leaving her deeply and shamefully embarrassed at being caught out like this.
Councils will receive payment for the assets.
The Reform model gives a return to the councils of approximately 8 cents in the dollar on the current valuation of what will amount to up to 30% of their total assets.
This is a totally unacceptable reality for any council, and their ratepayers, as a return on their investment in the assets over many generations.
The government is only trying to ensure a quality water supply now and into the future through the Three Waters reforms.
The Auditor-General says the Government’s legislation for Three Waters reform risks removing important checks and balances, allowing the new water entities to operate without proper public accountability.
John Ryan, the Controller and Auditor-General, wrote to Parliament saying the legislation “could have an adverse effect on public accountability, transparency, and organisational performance”.
The Auditor-General, which is an independent office of Parliament that monitors the government, published its submission on the Water Services Entities Bill on Monday.
The submission raised concerns about how the entities would be held to account for delivering drinking water and managing the storm and waste water systems.
The Auditor-General’s report identified clear shortcomings in the Government’s legislation, which he said should have been abundantly clear to the Government given it took four years to get this far.
“This legislation has been poorly thought through, poorly drafted and not well-thought-out. It raises significant issues in regard to performance reporting, accountability and transparency,” he said.
For a Prime Minister who declared at her first election to power, that she would lead the most open and transparent government we have seen and one that was the single source of truth, this can be nothing short of alarming to the public of New Zealand.
We see a Prime Minister who has gone from preaching in the “Pulpit of Truth” to “Lecturing from the Lectern of Lies”.