Central government will force local councils to transfer ownership of their water assets to four new water entities that will collectively be owned by local councils.
The Government had given councils the opportunity to commit to getting on board its proposal to centralise the management and ownership of the country’s drinking, storm and wastewater assets on their own accord.
However, in the face of opposition from some councils (including major player - Auckland Council), the Government has taken a heavy-handed approach, forcing councils to partake.
Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta confirmed the Government will push on with its proposal to create four publicly-owned water entities.
“The case for change is too compelling to ignore," Mahuta said.
"It is clear that without the establishment of these publicly-owned entities we will continue to see a frail network and contaminated water in many communities. To delay will only push the problem on, increase future household costs and put livelihoods at risk."
For the economies of scale underpinning the reforms to be achieved, the Government needs widespread council participation.
The Department of Internal Affairs, which is leading the overhaul, estimated a new water entity would need to service between 600,000 and 800,000 people to “achieve a level of efficient scale to contribute to meeting the investment deficit”.
While councils will have to cede ownership of their water assets to the new entities, the huge amount of debt the Government argues needs to be incurred to maintain these assets, will also fall on the entities’ balance sheets.
The Government estimates $185 billion is needed to fix, upgrade and maintain New Zealand’s water services over the next 30 years.
“Currently 43 of the 67 councils do not have the revenue to cover their water services operating expenditures at the moment, let alone once the infrastructure starts failing,” Mahuta said, recognising the fact councils' rates revenue is limited.
Mahuta assured councils the Government wasn’t taking assets from councils, as they would collectively own the new water entities.
She said council employees that primarily work on water services will be guaranteed a role with the new water service entities that retain key features of their current role, salary, location, leave and hours/days of work.
Details around exactly how the entities will be governed, and how councils pooling assets with differing values will be treated, are yet to be ironed out.
A working group of local government, iwi and water industry experts will be set up to work through these arrangements.
Mahuta said strong safeguards, protecting against privatisation, would be written into legislation.
Legislation will be introduced to parliament in early-December to progress the establishment of the entities. The bill will go through the select committee process, through which the public will be able to provide feedback. The entities will become operational in July 2024.
The Government has put $2.5 billion on the table to support councils to make the transition. See this story for more on funding.
National has committed to repealing the entity model if it gets into government.
National's Local Government spokesperson Christopher Luxon accused Labour of ignoring mayors opposed to the reforms, as well as the 55,000 people who signed National’s petition calling for the plans to be dumped.
"Today’s announcement shows that all of the Minister’s earlier comments about ‘partnership’ were hollow, and her reassurances that councils could continue to opt-out were completely false," Luxon said.
“We’ll continue to fight Labour’s centralisation and control agenda."
The Government's reforms follow contamination in Havelock North's drinking making 5500 sick, causing 45 hospitalisations and contributing towards three deaths in 2016. They also follow Auckland's beaches routinely closing to swimmers due to contamination, and Wellington's aged pipes frequently bursting, and causing road closures and sewage to be pumped into the sea.
225 Comments
to call them assets is also miss leading, they are liabilities that councils use to charge us for running, if you live in a city do you have the option of running your own septic tank or drinking water tank, no council will not let you as they will lose revenue.
that is what this argument is about for councils the loss of a revenue stream
Agree. And they revalue them (upwards) regularly and then up the depreciation on them accordingly - but there is no compulsion under the legislation for that depreciation funding to be 'ring-fenced' for asset renewal. Comes time for that renewal and there is no money - hence borrow. It's a nightmare and yes, the 'assets' are a liability to us all now.
The difference is in who holds debt, and who addresses the future better.
The future will be small, self-sufficient communities (all else will collapse). Ask whether this is a move towards, or away, from addressing that inevitable result? And the answer is: Away.
And they can't solve the 'unaffordable' problem by wishfully worshipping 'economies of scale' - the problem is one of Entropy and diminishing returns. We will end up with local people maintaining local pipe-work (Cuba comes to mind as curtain-raiser), probably on a voluntary basis. There won't be the surplus energy for any other approach.
Spot on, and moving the decision-making further away from those affected means more will be negatively affected.
The 'economics of scale is not linear but an inverted U with costs going up without any further benefit after a certain point, with no incentive to 'save' by doing less as you will be charged regardless.
If costs have to be higher, it is best they are at the front end of the U as this is because the assets are more likely to be retained locally in either your own ownership as your assets or the local communities. This also means you and the community are more self-sufficient, more resistant, both in good and bad times.
Don't disagree - we will move back to more local governance, perhaps in 10-20 years. Meanwhile some entity needs to take on this debt to fix infrastructure for the next 60-80 (perhaps even 100) years. We can't go full on local until that happens, as is the case presently where rates rises are opposed at every turn.
The difference is in who holds debt, and who addresses the future better.
Yup, which is why I favour CG (i.e., a SOE entity) for this particular catch-up period. For whatever the reason, we just do not generally attract high caliber LG representatives. Being a counsellor is a very poorly paid, part-time job - with many, many hours of unpaid work to boot.
Time to professionally fund this decision-making and implementation.
Kate,
Well, I think it does matter. Where possible, decision making should be done locally. Everybody agrees that the current system of funding our water infrastructure is broken, but what is proposed is not the answer. The government will do something similar with the DHBs if they are given another term in office to complete the task and i for one, having initially wished them well, will now vote to remove them.
Exactly. The important thing is that the water resources and infrastructure remain socially owned and don't get sold off or simply given away to private interests as happened to electricity under past National governments. That the social ownership and control is passing from local bodies to wider entities is nothing more than a blow to councillor egos.
Yes, the Lange/Douglas Labour years. And then when Clark/Cullen got in they proceeded to buy them back - including;
.http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/403280/Govt-buys-back-rail-ferries-for-665m
Drum roll…. please…
Prime Minister Helen Clark today said the deal would pave the way for the modernisation of the rail network, which formed a key part of the Government's sustainability agenda.
"Modernising our transport sector is central to transforming our economy and making it truly sustainable," Miss Clark said.
"With rising fuel prices and growing awareness about the challenge of global climate change, many nations are looking to rail as a central part of 21st century economic infrastructure."
Kate, could you please point out to me where we might see any of the promises made back then having come through so far?
I could name heaps of them (improvements to the rail network since purchase from Toll). First that comes to mind is double-tracking of the electrified computer rail network to Waikanae on the Kāpiti Coast. Re-establishment of the Gisborne line. Confirmation of the rail hub to be developed at P Nth. New ferry purchases underway.... and many more; they are all detailed on their website, e.g.;
https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/media/next-step-for-new-generation-interislander-ferries/
https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/what-we-do/projects/napier-to-wairoa/
I agree - you have to have the 'grass roots' arguing 'grass-roots' ideology in order to get somewhere. I was quite pleased with Rawiri and Debbie when they tried to get the Speaker to shut down Judith Collins and her race-based question-time rhetoric.
It was a healthy expression of Māori cultural norms/mana demonstrated on our Parliamentary floor. Naturally, a lot of other stuff is 'noise' as the have to provide opposition (difference) as a means to increase their numbers/influence. Such is MMP.
PS Mahuta is very much in line with her whakapapa and I believe she represents her whanau/iwi and hapu really well. I'm also really impressed with her in the FA portfolio.
Cannot recall ever before, one cabinet minister administering, at one end local government and at the other, foreign affairs. A bit of the rub is surfacing. In the former portfolio and governance beyond, the minister is interested quite clearly, only in the roughly 15% of NZrs of her race (race being her vernacular, often enough) how then are the other 85% to be represented in the other portfolio, that is New Zealand as a nation, in its entirety?
I don't need to be literal in order to be serious. You already knew that but I'll spell it out for you literally: Waititi was out of line as per an agreed set of protocols that define conduct in the New Zealand parliamentary debating chamber, was censored but continued regardless.
You appear to support that conduct - because it's for the "right" cause, or the "right" people? I contend that's dangerous and seldom ends well.
TK - I can't comment on the other two, but in terms of Conservation, Allen is and will be a dead loss.
In that she joins Woods (housing, energy) and Parker, thus far. They well be well-meaning people, but ignorance comes in many forms. In Allen's case, 'making money from the soil' is her base-line flaw. Someone should ask her what 'money' is? and what underwrites it.
Depends on whether such a transfer (which is of course pure speculation) was to iwi/rūnanga versus iwi/corporate. Already, Ngāi Tahu rūnanga point out that Ngāi Tahu corporate have very different (and separate) views on many issues, including in particular wai/water management than the rūnanga. The rūnanga is of course, concerned with kaitiakitanga obligations, whereas the corporate is there to run businesses profitably.
So, I would say it is important to make the distinction - and the Government is giving such assurances via legislation - that these assets will not be privatised.
I must admit to be slightly confused by all that, is it similar to the way BP want to help save the planet?
Also, for some reason it made me think of this
Yes, L Herbert - it's a definite ethical contradiction (not a good thing). It was the Crown that required iwi to set up registered 'corporate' arms in order to enforce corporate/capitalist disciplines relating to Treaty settlements on Māori. Certainly that fact that the positions differ points out that the corporate arm act within a utilitarian ethical framework (anthropocentric i.e., only humans have intrinsic value) - whereas the tribal arm act within a Māori ethical framework (ecocentric - i.e., all things in nature have intrinsic value, or mauri in te reo). This article explains how that plays out in practice;
Bollocks GBH - but you are right too.
Cantý farmers deserve all the shyte they get; they were behind the removal of democracy to further their own resource-grab.
But this move is equally invalid. This is like taking a sponge to the Titanic stateroom carpets - no comprende and by some orders of magnitude.
And the Minister didn't sound as if she understands the big picture.
To the barricades, comrade!
The entire review process was a sham. I read the Terms of Reference and they were so flimsy that it was obvious that there was a set agenda before they even started.
Consider that Minister Mahuta bemoans years of under-investment in water infrastructure and the dangers that places the NZ public in. And yet, and yet among the worst performing entities in the league tables of Water Standards compliance (at teh time the review started) were...(drum roll)...the NZ Government. Yes folks, the Gummint, in the form of the NZ Defence Forces, consistently rank way down the list of water providers at their military bases. Mahuta wants to save the NZ public from itself but can't be bothered protecting the health of the government's own employees and their families.
All joking aside there is an absolute s**t-storm coming in the form of adaptation to global heating effects. The bill to upgrade our water systems in the face of frequent, severe deluges is going to be ginormous. The government could have fixed the funding problems local government have but, instead, they are going to pick up the tab themselves. Whatever.
Sorry Kate you will have to do some fossicking. I think it's Health who publish the annual league tables. Every Water Services Provider (??) gets rated according to compliance with the Drinking Water Standards. Non-compliance with these standards is one of the rods Mahuta is using to beat up councils who are the vast majority of WSP's. But Defence is registered in its own right as a supplier at bases like Devonport, Waiouru, and Burnham.
At the time that they started this review I checked the league tables because their ostensible reasons for even beginning a review were exaggerated and slightly at odds with the truth.
Sure enough the Defence bases weren't that flash compared to councils but the government weren't worried enough to be publicly committing to upgrading their bases. Which makes it hard to accept that we are all going to die if they don't nationalise water.
The reports are worth a look because they separate out the standards that relate to potability and those that relate to process (operational and reporting). Sure enough almost all of the alleged sins of councils relate to process and, even worse, to their reporting of the results of tests. Their water is fine to drink.
As for compliance with consents to discharge from sewer and stormwater systems those are monitored by regional councils. Good luck finding them.
Thanks, will do that fossicking :-)!
I agree, the crisis that needs addressing relates more to sewerage and stormwater treatment/reticulation, as opposed to drinking water - so I too questioned in my mind, why they were 'selling it' (the reforms) based on drinking water standards.
To me, it's really more about the negative effects of sewerage and stormwater systems on both our freshwater and in-shore (including in particular, wetlands) oceans resources. That's what needs urgent money spent to clean up the current failing systems.
But, in relation to drinking water, I assume they will implement chlorination everywhere via statute (noting HB/HNrth was one of our chlorine-free supplies at the time of the outbreak).
Too easy to sell the problem as being about drinking water. They already had lots of stats that could be easily misused but, more importantly, Havelock North was still fresh in peoples' minds.
The Inquiry into HN did this government a great favour by unjustifiably hyping their findings. So what we got on RNZ and other media was great hand wringing about all the failures of Hastings District. The very few people who read the Inquiry's report found that though the report did let rip it also admitted that even if all of their recommendations had been implemented it probably would not have prevented the outbreak.
(On the other hand Hastings DC's response to the outbreak was deplorable - no arguments there).
Sure there was a lot of complacency on the part of both HDC and Hawkes Bay Regional Council. And there was hilariously bad regulation by Hawkes Bay DHB, but, basically, the Havelock North outbreak was just a freak accident. Even so, it features prominently in all the government's justifications for water reforms which has always been the red flag for me.
Pretty easy to find on MoH site. I looked under "Publications".
In the latest report was this gem concerning Burnham Military Camp:
The water supply uses ground water, is treated with filtration and UV and is chlorinated. The water is fluoridated. A temporary boil-water notice was in place during the reporting period. Burnham Military Camp failed the protozoal Standards because compliance was not attempted [my emphasis - K].
LINZ also gets a fail.
Just to be clear: compliance with Drinking Water Standards has been mandatory since 2008. It's not like this one snuck up on Defence.
Also check out the Key Findings section. It says almost everyone who receives drinking water from a managed supply (council, government or private) receives good quality water from a well-run supplier. Not quite the message we are getting from Mahuta.
You are VERY lucky GBH. I live in Auckland in a street where all the houses are less than 20 years old and EVERY water mains has had to be replaced - someone said it is the design. We have also just finished water restrictions because the Watercare did not realise that we needed more water than less over the last 20 years DOH.
I'm pleased you have nice water but Councils are not the ones who should be managing it as they simply do not have the skills to look at the bigger picture. They are more interested in whether we should mow our berm, the colours of our street signs (I kid you not), or whether an RV can park for more than two days.
I would be more than happy for Auckland Council to be run more centrally, but admit the rural ones probably run OK.
Yes, it's a mess up there. And Watercare charges for new connections are blummin' outrageous.
They explain that is because they fund new infrastructure with those connection fees, but then they needed to apply for more take from the Waikato awa because they had left a back-up dam de-commissioned. Makes no sense.
Xing - master of the pithy comment!
I can't help wondering if this will end up being an iwi own goal. That a cunning plan to put water supply under the control of iwi ends up being a cunning plan by international private water companies to financialise rights to water in New Zealand. As others have pointed out, once water is removed from the clutches of our local council bureaucracy it becomes fair game for whatever parliamentary politicians are in power next.
Just as carbon credits have become a get rich quick scheme for international gamblers so could NZ water transfer rights become a lucrative little market for international gamblers. As Australian farmers have found to their horror setting up a private water rights system has led to them not being able to afford water to feed their cows and that instead Melbourne water traders are becoming multi-millionaires on the back of the farmers misery.
Leaving the indigenous people wailing that the water does not belong to people it is part of the land and should be respected as such. Which is quite different to the neoliberal + Greens thinking that if you put a price on water the water becomes valued and the most efficient user of the water will pay the highest price and inefficient users of water will have to stop using it. The most efficient users of water eventually ending up being large international agricorp players.
Which ends up with most of the Canterbury plains being owned by the likes of Archer-Daniels-Midland Co and similar firms.
It’s thin edge of the wedge policy setting. Get the mechanics in place first then broaden and deepen the take. Same applies for the legislation slipped through to allow IRD to obtain details of personal wealth in assets. Initially, supposedly only a small percentage of those perceived as “very wealthy” but you watch the threshold for that start dropping once it gets underway. Pathfinder to Green’s wealth tax in waiting.This is a furtive, back door stealth government. The utterances of PM Adern in 2017 of transparent fair government, inclusive for all, are proven to be both duplicitous and cynical.
Not ironic on my part in a simple sense, that is . If the government had got into gear with vaccinations by March at the latest and better data collection through saliva testing this mandate just announced likely would not have been necessary. I have no desire whatsoever to see segregated like policies imposed in NZ. 1981 was a sharp and ugly awakening to all of NZ in that regard. But this government painted themselves and us, into a corner and the mandate is a direct result of that. They have made it necessary, therefore like it or lump it, it is not unnecessary and is being imposed accordingly. I agree with the reality that it now has to be done, but I dislike and disagree intensely with why it has needed to be done. The great irony is the government itself who in two election campaigns preached and avowed solidarity and equality for all citizens alike, and are now found to be imposing draconian doctrines more traditionally found in totalitarian like regimes.Blame them but blame China first.
The 3 waters process is an obvious stalking horse to enable final authority over water to be simply handed over to unelected Maori tribal groups who have been agitating through their academic & Govt friends & threatening court action for years over their perceived ToW "principles" & "rights" to it.
This antidemocratic Govt has no electoral mandate for this key plank of their pre-election secret He PuaPua racial separatist agenda.
Well, it's my objection. Can somebody please explain me why is 50% ownership + decision control over certain public infrastructure should go to the a group of people based on their race?
I personally can't think of the reasons that would not include words "bribe" or "identity politics".
There is no proposal for anything other than 100% ownership by the Crown to my knowledge. So, your question/objection is a hypothetical at this stage. My advice - don't worry about it! Both forestry and fisheries assets were provided in previous Te Tiriti settlements and it hasn't affected the price of fish or timber :-). So, stay calm and carry on as the British would say!
These foreign flagged vessels can only operate in NZ's EEZ with our regulatory approval - which in terms of fisheries legislation means with quota under the QMS (as I understand it). Many of the foreign flagged vessels entering NZ Ports are doing so having been fishing in the High Seas - which are regulated under UN rules. That's not to say that no foreign flagged vessels have purchased quota locally - as I understand it many quota holders do sell quota on an international market.
And yeah, the fishing industry worldwide is all very, very unsustainable;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-19/how-china-is-plundering-the-worlds-oceans/12971422
And a real geopolitical hot-point at the moment.
Brilliantly uninformed. Read the link to Ngāi Tahu's court case provided above.
Seeking rangatiratanga is quite different to seeking ownership - but to understand that one needs to understand Te Ao Māori and Māori environmental ethics. If it were not for iwi/rūnanga fighting the good fights on behalf of our natural resources since the RMA came into force, we would have lost much more habitat and species than we have done. I know because my job requires me to be familiar with Environment Court case law. Effectively, since implementation of the RMA - Department of Conservation have been bled-dry over the years, such that they have been unable (and openly discouraged by Ministers) to perform their statutory role as advocate on behalf of the environment. Hence, that advocacy void (i.e., the "good fights") has largely been filled by iwi, Fish & Game and EDS since the 1990s once legal precedents started being challenged via the courts. .
Agreed, re Doc.
But Maori are no different to any other, given the same parameters. If they'd had bulldozers, they'd have done more than fire tracts to chase the moa into extinction. Some of us in all cultures, will propound safeguarding of culture, environment, whatever. But those folk have always been a minority, and the dissonance results in resource draw-down every time.
What I'm saying is that, if all things are given to Maori, the same pollution, same resource-rape, will play out.
Māori as a part of the human race are no different in number where it is a minority that "propound safeguarding of culture, environment and whatever" - as you say. But Māori (and indeed most indigenous) ethics are ecocentric, as opposed to anthropocentric. And these ethical premises are becoming widely known/taught in Māori education curricula. So we are slowly developing this knowledge as a nation.
You would be surprised how widely/rapidly matauranga Māori is coming to be understood in our younger generations. Whether they follow it in practice in greater number going forward is anyone's guess. But, I'm inspired and hopeful.
There is a fundamental difference to Māori ethics and Judeo-Christian ethics. This is a seminal article on Judeo-Christian ethics and the relationship to environmental/natural resources - a great read - a classic;
Oops sorry, doesn't work - Google "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis Lynn White 1967".
Knowing you pdk, I'm guessing you've read it already!
That's just pedaling the "ancient wisdom" hokey, re-imagining pre-European history as some sort of nirvana of enlightenment.
Given the same means any race or ethnicity will find a way to justify doing the exact same thing to the extent of their ability - the only limiting factor is the available technology.
.. because this government actually believe their policies are good ideas ... regardless how pathetic they really are ... and , 50 % of the population agreed with them in the 2020 election ...
With 2020 hindsight ... a few must be feeling sheepish now , for supporting these clowns ...
Gummy, I thought you were quite critical of local government not focusing on core services? If you were, you were quite right in that regard. The 'glory projects' keep coming as far as I can see (not helped by the PGF fund!).
Three waters infrastructure is not sexy - and hence has been underfunded for ages and ages - wastewater in particular - that's why our beaches during summer are posting 'no swimming' signs all over the place (Auckland is particularly bad). It's embarrassing the number of sewerage spills/overflows; broken pipes merging with stormwater systems; etc.
Time for change.
.
LOL - "theft" of assets. Sounds familiar, doesn't it!
But point is, as said by another commentator - the reality is due to deferred maintenance in most locations around the nation - responsibility for the three waters infrastructure is a liability.
LG doesn't care about losing the assets, they care about losing the power. Presently, they have an all care, no responsibility regime running. That really does need to end, Gummy.
Don't forget, the AC CEOs salary is many thousands that of the PM. It's ridiculous. These fiefdoms need a kick up the ....
Even if most of what you say is true, which it is, why is the solution to hand it over to a larger entity that has failed on almost any measure you want to benchmark them against?
Again, only the binary choice, one wrong for another wrong, when there are far better right options available.
What do we call this one - Kiwiwater?
Present and past Central Govts. and their departments. You can see the same failed ideologies running through everything they do.
On what measures? The failure of Kiwibuild. The price of our housing relative to income, the quality of our housing(second highest rates of Asthma in 'developed nations.) The increasing number of homeless. Increasing numbers needing food parcels. Suicide rates. Children being abused by certain groups etc.
Without entering into a discussion over the merits or issues of such new structure, I would not want to work for such an organization, as both National and Act have declared that they will repeal the whole thing as soon as they are in power. It is only a temporary thing.
This whole thing is only going to last for as long as Labour is in power. At the end of the day, this is just some more money wasted on consultants, woke smoke and mirrors experts, and pen pushers, I guess.
In any case, this Government has done an incredibly terrible job in promoting this reform. It seems that almost the whole country is against it.
Not me! I think it's the only way forward. Mahuta is right when she describes much of the existing infrastructure as crumbling under our feet. The investment requirement nationwide is so high that it needs to be on the Crown's balance sheet. Those council's objecting were objecting in the main because their answer to their own problems was "give us another income stream" so we can get the job done. Point is - JK's government tried to reign in LG's profligate spending on "nice-to-haves" and re-direct spending to "need to haves" by changing the LGA purpose, but still there was resistance to focus only on core services.
LAB/NZ first came in and restored the four-well beings into the purpose of LG (a move largely pushed and then welcomed by LG) and still, the borrowing grew and continued to be a sort of what I refer to as 'cycleways first - three waters second' kind of trend.
To me their time is up - LG just isn't attracting the right caliber of politicians these days - they have become (by and large - with some exceptions) dysfunctional. Rates are getting out-of-hand. This infrastructure requirement needs to be funded centrally - the deferred maintenance is far too big for these local entities to handle.
MTCW.
Of course the costs to fix will rise - but central government has better ability to borrow and better ability to redistribute those costs more equitably. You really can't get much worse than present;
Yep. Look at NZTA, NZSF, ANZ, TVNZ as examples. Well run government corporates - and the world has changed with dramatically with COVID. A whole lot more risk to be managed where infrastructure funding is concerned. Risk management based on AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 standard is a practice/operational requirement within these organisations, whereas I'm yet to find any of that sort of certification under that standard within LG;
https://risk-engineering.org/ISO-31000-risk-management/
Light rail hasn't gone ahead - right? Or do you mean CRL? Don't know about the busway - but I'm assuming that was AC (as regional council), not NZTA. And the harbour crossing again - no such thing has gone forward and failed to my knowledge. These are all political decisions you are critical of - not operational ones. I'm taking about operational management by quangos/SOEs/government-owned entities.
Councils and Iwi appoint regional representatives on a 50:50 basis
These representatives appoint a selection panel
The selection panel appoints directors.
No accountability to anyone.
Sounds like a recipe for mates appointing mates and paying them handsome salaries to do nothing. It couldn't possibly be anything but a massive uncontrollable bloated bureaucracy.
you can add to that the Health service -- NGO providers like us are audited virtually every year -- often more than once against the HDSS sector standards -- all 623 points! -- yet our hospitals are never subjected to the same type of standards or Audits -- and staff who come from DHB to NGO's are horrified at the level of scrutiny we are subjected to .
Sorry, if the state was doing that, then there wouldn't be huge shortfalls in those areas already. In fact, the state of those services already is precisely why Aucklanders shouldn't trust centralisation of their water assets.
Not only that, there's an arrogance of the ruling class here. The population increases sit squarely on the shoulders of central government, yet they blame local councils for not developing infrastructure. And yet, when Auckland was slashing vital projects from the Covid budget, where was Mahuta? Where was the Central Government to the rescue bit then?
Ordinary Kiwis need to learn to hold these people the same contempt they clearly hold us in.
The other point you could also make is that a lot of taxes are raised locally and regionally flow to the almighty centre. Why would it be so hard to keep local control and fund future corrections to underfunding of infrastructure by proportionally allocating taxes from where they were raised in the first place?
Yes, it is the model whereby CG funds LG up to 50% of their local roading infrastructure costs that is in place now.
A lot of the advocates for more centralised funding for LG suggested LGs should receive-back the GST charged on rates.
My guess is, that wouldn't go anywhere near funding these infrastructure deficits and CG (and likely the rating agencies as well) weren't favourable toward raising the debt target/ceiling via the LGFA. Probably due to the fact that if one LGA goes belly up on their debt, all those members of the LGFA (which is most councils in NZ) are jointly-proportionally liable for the bad debt incurred.
Scary but true.
Carlos - It feels like we are in a Dictatorship, clearly the social experiment is at play here. Having read the proposal, 5 of the controlling board positions are for UNELECTED IWI !. To me the water infrastructure is being "NATIONALISED" I.E. theft by the state. Anyone who thinks there would or could be an improvement in water services only needs to reflect on the SUPERCITY ! I don't like how the Government is pushing and encouraging the racial divide and is challenging me whether NZ is my long term choice.
Saying no is no longer an option.
They tried via public open discussion and interesting advertising blitz to sway opinion but decided they know what is best for us and just take it which was always the end goal.
Reminds me of my children fighting over a toy and the 4 year old just takes it from the 10 year with no discussion.
Our government is starting to look very heavy handed of late.
Looking forward to 3 story ghetto boxes next door blocking my sun while trying to call the supreme water supply service to pay for my water supply that has just increased price by 100percent to subidize 9000 fairy jobs while booking in for my 4th booster shot to keep our 90 plus percent vaccine target.
But all good my house just jumped 40k this week and 50k last week and government now has real helicopeters dropping fiat cash to pay for everything.
... it wasnt until her third term as PM that Helen Clark started getting so heavy handed ... Jacinda has reached this point in just her second term ... we are being steamrolled by the Ardern juggernaut ...
I'm beginning to think that an ACT/Gnats/NZF coalition could crush Labour in the 2023 election ...
For this to happen, National would first have to sort themselves out, and do it now. They are currently a sorry sight and a sad mess.
If they continue like that, I would not be surprised to see National polling below 20%. Maybe it is time for Collins to go, and for somebody like, say, Chris Bishop to take over? I can't remember National ever being in such a state.
A "Common Sense Political Party" that I advocated for many moons ago would have us with the Perfect Country of 5 million, not the Floundering mess we subscribe to so dearly now. So glad I retired many moons ago and do not have to put up with idiots running our Watered Down and Down Played Energy Systems till the cows come home and Dam the Consequences of Fiddling the Books, Hedging our Bets, and thinking Interest is the Bagatell of all things Monetary.
Each and every Politician, Public Servant and BWanker with his hand in yer pocket is so obliged for your Services of earning a crust, that they are so deeply in your debt to the tune of Billions.
Plus that is why the Layabouts we support Vote for them, as the have been Carried into never never Land. The Land of the Long White Crowd and the Super Rich we ADORE.
They bought us Hook, Line and Sinker......Monetary Policy...Be Blowed. Cheers everyone....Cannot be bovvered to write the Wrongs of NZ anymore....cos they just....Accumulate.
And Covid is not to Sneezed at...it has to endured too. Thanks Folks.....You are a good read, but no idea of the Shite we are in....Fools Stop. Sorry...that should have been Full Stop. Oh! and the Climate Change Brigade should listen to a 17 year old girl....The World is run by Idiots......not just NZ. Peace be with you all. Like Hell.
I am no lover of Labour, but it must be said that your potential problem of 3 story ghetto boxes next door blocking your sun is something on which Labour agreed with National. When it comes to housing, both have acted like a bunch of incompetent clowns.
Regarding the housing Ponzi, we should also not forget the heavy responsibilities and utter incompetence of the clown-in-chief at the RBNZ, Mr Orr.
Yes, sadly many are run like little fiefdoms. The elected representatives are 'managed' by the CEOs and senior management. Just look at the ridiculous salaries we pay to the CEOs of even the smallest of councils. I'm guessing in many cases the council CEO is one of the highest paid salaried individual in the area they hold sway over. They need to come back down to earth. Hopefully the Government also gets that message through so that on the 5 yearly review of CEO performance and salary, things will get back to public servant-like salaries in LG.
Have a look at Auckland Council as it is right now;
https://www.ratepayers.nz/rich_list
Hopefully with the reforms we'll be paying professional engineers, as opposed to bureaucrats with BAs, these kinds of dollars.
Come off it, the easiest bread in NZ must surely be finding employment as one of these so-called "public servants" (strange name as they seem to have no consideration for the public and no concept of service either). I do include Councils in this as well.
Two, three, four, five hundred thousand PA for attending a few meetings, lounging about the Koru Club, and dodging all accountability ... lovely jubbly.
Imagine what the 3 Waters people will be getting paid!
Frontline public servants (police, teachers, nurses etc) get shafted while the back-office incompetents get rich.
Certainly not disagreeing with you there - check out this link for AC executive salaries;
https://www.ratepayers.nz/rich_list
And the reason professional engineers don't work for councils (they are in the main contracted-in via consultancy firms) is because they aren't part of "the Club" you have to be in "the Club" to get these higher salaried jobs. Here's "the Club";
https://taituara.org.nz/who-are-we
They've recently changed their name from SOLGM (Society of Local Government Managers) - and here's how to get membership in the Club;
Read the requirements for full membership. So, you have to be in "the Club" already to become a full member of "the Club" - and most executive positions within LG (and almost all CEO roles) advertise that you must be a full member of SOLGM (now Taituarā). It's why we find that existing CEOs and senior managers who fail in one LA, turn up in another! It's like a closed circuit recruitment process. LOL.
You get the odd council that sticks its neck out and hires someone not in "the Club", e.g., QLDC hired Adam Feeley ex-SFO CEO, some years ago - and there have been a few others, but "the Club" in general still has "the force" behind it!
Interesting reading, thanks.
And surely one of us must be able to find their "secret handshake" tutorial on YouTube and then infiltrate 'The Club'?
I suppose this is part of the issue. The Club only hires members of The Club, and none of them are going to say 'hey we all get paid too much to do too little'.
I don't buy the argument that if you were to cut public sector salaries you'd see a decline in service either (NB I mean 'back office bludgers' not your frontline cops, teachers etc). What else would these people do for a living anyway?
In fairness, a lot of upper management of private companies seems to be like this as well. Once you're that club you're in for life - no matter how badly you do at managing a company, there will always be some cushy consulting gig or directors' chair for you to keep reaping the rewards.
If only! You have no idea how many young children suffer from tooth decay prior to even getting their permanent teeth and school age children that are pre-diabetic, not to mention the adult-diabetes crisis we also have.
Sugar tax - very happy to see it introduced.
However we will see unfortunately less food affordable for poor people as a result. Higher prices for low cost items does not make high price items that are healthier come down in cost. Much of what goes through foodbanks is also laced with sugar and carbs. The downside of a sugar tax is it harms the most those it claims to protect, and the proportion of sugar in diets and lack of access to basic dental services remain the same... (no wait they get worse also given the drive to even poorer food sources with less in hand for dental support).
No. What happens if a sugar tax is implemented is that the manufactures reduce the amount of sugar in their processed foods. Hence, all the sugary breakfast cereals stay the same price but have less sugar in order to minimise the tax paid on them.
What the manufacturers have been doing over time is increasing their sugar content to make the packaged goods more palatable - and hence essentially they are re-programming our tastes/palate towards higher and higher sugar content in processed foods. It has become so bad in America that I can't eat any of their processed foods anymore - for example, I used to love Twinkies as a kid;
https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/hostess-twinkies-10-pack/22434259
But couldn't take a second bite on returning to the US for a visit a couple of decades ago. My palate got used to NZ real cream, as opposed to US mock-cream.
Thats next week along with more meals to kids in schools as parents can no longer be trusted.
Maybe we need to send a message back that we are the majority and they still serve us but I am getting the feeling we are being looked upon as sheep and they are the farmer and the sheep are very sheepish of late.
Whoops is has always been that way but now they dont even try to hide what they think and do.
Kate, I really value your contributions here. And I have been generally a bit more often left leaning than right leaning on occasions. However, this current government is even worse than Helen Clark's in terms of their respect to individual freedoms and rights. And it shows very clearly much earlier than during Clark's time. I hate the blind following of neo-liberal policies for decades now, because it has wreaked havoc and aint' working. But socialism taken to the extreme ending up in simply ignoring true science and basic human rights is not going to solve anything either. In fact, it will result in far worse outcomes than many might anticipate. But that is what probably is necessary to revert to smaller, more local, more direct democracy and a start of being a bit more sustainable. Only when centralised big (national or global) organisations are removed from the trough will we make some real inroads to moving towards more sustainable lives. The time of centralised, big efficiencies has long passed. We missed that train a long time ago. I think if you study history a bit more, you may realise what I mean, and PDK probably gets tired soon too, lol..
C_T_20, thanks appreciate the dialogue. As I see it the freedom followers are in many ways the (ex)neo-liberals trying to re-invent themselves ideologically.. They are trying desperately to hang onto the status quo (which is neo-liberalism and the Washington Consensus) .
And in doing so they have to make a boogy-man of the so-called socialists. Whereas the so-called socialists (and by my comments, you might be leaning toward putting me in that camp) are more what I'd refer to as transformationalists. I'm a transformationalist. I see a need for radical societal change coming from outside the corridors of power (i.e., from civil society) and I believe if we don't get that radical change, then society the world over will collapse.
Heck, we get news every night of it actually collapsing in much of humanity, and we're taking the natural world down with it.
And yes, I'm a fan of more direct democracy but in the meantime, whilst our current institutional setting is a representative democracy - I'm happy to exercise a big loud voice from the sidelines to demand change from our representatives.
I for one have now cancelled my Press Patron subscription...
[Edit] should have added for clarity, not because comments are closed, but totally unbalanced reporting and articles that mirror the mainstream eerily. Not one serious questions raised by anyone, let alone a bit more digging deeper via perhaps some counter balance on a weighty issues such as the biggest expense in decades, let alone the human rights issues. Enough said I think. [/Edit]
... there is no vision ... no inspiration , no " let's do this , team " ...
It's all : " if you dont do as you're told we'll force it upon you , or we'll slam the door in your face and leave you out in the cold .... away from the playground & the other kiddies " ...
Actually that's fairly typical of New Zealand governments generally. Government ignore consultation and feedback, then plough onwards with whatever they wanted or didn't want to do anyway.
Then we wonder why so few people, even experts, bother making public submissions.
I can understand why central government will cease these assets ASAP. Clean fresh water is a resource that will only increase in value. They want to make sure they can get their snouts in the trough as it increases in value.
What was the point in going through a feedback and consultation process if this is just going to be a shotgun wedding?
Is there a tally of whether councils support the change e.g 16 in favour, 4 against? The 'mood' is quite strong not to move to Three Waters but I'd like to know how its viewed by council or opinion poll.
I don't think I have hated a Government as much as this one.
This is the only 'count' I've seen reported;
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/three-waters-mayors-pushing-back-a-tide-of-effluent
Your view on this probably depends on whether your local entity handles water competently or not, right?
Some will win, some will lose.
I agree with those who hate these long-winded faux-consultation processes, but I don't think it's a bad idea. It makes sense to consolidate working capital and resources for water projects.
The North Shore was shafted when the Ak council was formed. It has sewerage 100% sorted. Water, well that was sorted as well until thousands of people started arriving. (Ignore Goffs excuse of a drought).
So in effect there has been a huge amount of cross subsidization from the Shore to other parts of Ak already.
Not sure what this will mean as far as other districts being lumped in with Ak. But it cannot make things worse given Goff and his absolutely hopeless council. The interceptor. Now there is a huge waste of money. So others will help fund that massive debt.
A lot of the mess was created by the enabling legislation;
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2009/0032/80.0/whole.html#DLM2322337
For starters it never should have been a unitary authority - and secondly it established Watercare under a 'unique' to AKL corporate arrangement. They are untouchable - complete power and control. I assume they'll be brought back into the government fold with this 3 Waters initiative.
I was one of the very first cases in hospital when that happened, before they even knew the cause - I was told I had "some kind of virus" and told to go home and drink lots of water. As a best-case scenario I expect absolutely no change once the waters have been centralised.
This infrastructure nationalisation is in line with the nationalisation of all polytechnics with the same rationale - pick out 1 or 2 poor performers and use that as an excuse to control assets from a head office.
Hospitals & health boards are next.
What else can Labour take control of? Universities? Dentists/Doctors? Internet services? Electricity? Schools? What right do these entities have in running their own autonomous organisation for their local users?
Has anyone noticed the deafening silence from NZ big business about the increasing overreach of government?
Pretty clear they are all dependent on government contracts and don’t dare contradict dear leader publicly for fear of reprisal.
How quickly we have descended into a banana republic - all in the name of “greater good”
"Mahuta said strong safeguards, protecting against privatisation, would be written into legislation."
This consolidation is the first step towards privatsation of our water supply. Mahuta's safeguards are meaningless, because a future parliament will override them and sell the assets.
I wonder how early in 2022 early is? Could be cynical timing for public submissions, opening over Xmas/New Year break. Usual story though.
For the posters here that agree with this proposal, to improve failing infrastructure within council areas that haven't kept up, why do you think each of the 4 authorities have to have a 50% Iwi representation?
For the last 35 years governments have been trying to square the circle of complying with their legal obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi while sticking to the principle of water not being the property of anyone (not even the government).
This is a last throw of the dice to avoid giving iwi legal ownership of some of NZ's water.
As they explain;
Rangatiratanga is not ownership. Owning something means using it however you like. Rangatiratanga as a concept and a practice encompasses rights, responsibilities and obligations. And that includes the obligation to do what we can to stop the continued degradation of our freshwater systems.
It's good reading.
Sure, every despot king is also upholding the glory of the god, and everything he does is for the benefit of the people. The Church was to be for the faithful. Examples would be never ending. Easy to say nice things really.
Also the meaning assigned to ownership seems to be so arbitrary. I own my car but I cannot use it "however I like".
The structure of this concept i.e the undemocratic 50% involvement of iwi is the most divisive and politically stupid idea ever to proposed in this country. Fortunately it will result in Ardern and Co being thrown out of office in a landslide at the next election.
People don't seem to understand the link and general rules of thumb between risk and reward, capital and yield, CAPEX and OPEX.
For example, if land and builds were allowed to be built for their true free market value, ie a lot less, then rents/debts could be less, but yield increased relatively.
And further, with less money spent on capital debt, the true cost of maintenance(rates) can be charged. This is a different issue of any portion of the rates that are being badly managed and money added to the rates to cover this waste.
Just like we are being overcharged for our capital purchase, we are being undercharged for our operational expenditure (in general).
It's easy to work out the short and long-term advantage of say our housing costing 50% less than present(which it should be) and our rates being 50% higher (which they should be, even with bureaucratic waste being removed).
But up to now, we have chosen the opposite. And the change proposal would mean that housing still costs too much and our rates are likely to double.
If your income does not rise to match, then this debt has to come from some other part of your expenditure, or of the cost of buying a house.
Any guesses?
I read a Stuff apology article a few weeks ago that quoted various LG mayors on their held position. There were only a handful that were for the changes. The head of Local Government NZ voted for the change on behalf of LGNZ without putting it to the members!
Three Waters political naivety no excuse from our elected officials | Stuff.co.nz
Here's some comment. NZCPR are keeping abreast of this issue.
The Three Waters Journey – Part 2 | NZCPR Site
Three Waters Journey – Part 3 | NZCPR Site
I read somewhere that Nanaia Mahuta's sister has already been appointed to the new Water Entitiy Board. Sorry I don't have the source.
"we will continue to see a frail network and contaminated water in many communities".
Yes, we've had contaminated drinking water all over NZ all of the time. Oh wait, the Government have made that up. And as for "strong safeguards against privatisation", of course they will, Maori tribes have equal standing in the decision making structure (even though they haven't been voted into such a position) so why the hell would they do otherwise?
Labour, stealing everyone's stuff since 7 July, 1916.
Details around exactly how the entities will be governed, and how councils pooling assets with differing values will be treated, are yet to be ironed out.
This is a version of a reverse blank cheque company.
Instead of buying shares of a shell company in the hope that the fund manager acquires a profitable business for it; the owners of a functioning company is asked to hand over their business by force while the fund manager decides how much shares and at what price individual ex-owners will be given.
The scalability fallacy is glaring in this fiasco- economies of scale don't work for everything; its use to entice an agreement is nothing more than a deficient individual throwing technical jargons to appear brighter.
The water is a national resource but the infrastructure and related assets are not. The attempt to obfuscated the two to drive the message that everything belongs to the crown is nothing short of a facist styled confiscation.
The whole thing is a scam, a daylight robbery and a blatant theft.
Borrowing by Councils is dependent on their gearing ratio. Take away the "assets" of water and there is a lot less against which to borrow! Many Councils have been using water assets to borrow against for other projects rather than keeping up the infrastructure. A good thing about Three Waters is that it will really expose what Councils are borrowing and for why!
News of the Day......Huba Huba..Force Fed.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/the-case-for-change-is-too-comp…
This is gonna be a Consultants' Wet Dream, a Yuge Munny-Pit and a Giant Fustercluck in the making. Imagine trying to integrate the following, to prepare for real time, answering a myriad of end-user questions, issuing and tracking maintenance jobs, planning for metering, billing.....
A sample of the systems to be combined from upwards of 70 separate entities, most will be different systems,versions, and even OS'es. Plus SCADA, plus contracts with providers. plus......:
- GIS showing location of main pipe runs and significant assets e.g. sewer sumps and pumps, water supply dams, bores, pumps, reservoirs, tunnels, access roads and tracks, surface valves, thrust blocks, manholes....
- Maintenance schedules and history for aforesaid assets - would need to extend back into paper records as many assets like dams have extremely long service lives and may not have been touched for decades
- Customer requests, logs, jobs issued and completed as responses
- Contracts with suppliers, maintainers, and landholders (easements, access rights etc)
- Inventory systems - most 3 waters yards have very significant stocks of anything needed: just-in-case rules this world.
- Financial systems for jobbing, costing, payrolls, fleet and plant operation, assets tracking and replacement, to say nothing about liabilities (loans, HP, lease-to-own etc)
- Rating systems for billing end consumers. Meters. Connection status, fees, penalties, debtor management.
- SCADA - proprietary, customised, essential
- Consents, rights, agreements from other regulators, land-owners
- Payroll, HR and the whole staff-management thang
- Governance systems
- And the most important - Logo, letter-head and two-languages naming. This alone could soak up (sorry) millions....
I'm inclined to think Dese Guys don't have Clue One about what they have taken on.....
Even where the same systems have been used (eg Hansen for asset management) there will be subtle differences in how data has been entered. The data merge will be very expensive.
I expect water charges to rise considerably. Apart from the costs of bringing the water networks "up to scratch" which will all be passed on to consumers we can add on the costs of
- governance
- support (finance, IT, HR, customer service, records management)
- communication/marketing
- co-ordination (with councils, government, each other)
Those costs already exist but 3 waters share them with the other 37 odd activities within a council. Now they will have to fund their own.
The major cost drivers in operating water networks will remain identical (depreciation, maintenance, power, insurance). Any minor efficiency gains in the asset management area will be offset by new overheads.
So up go the bills
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.