Below is a press release from Minister for Infrastructure Grant Robertson and Minister of Local Government Nanaia Mahuta on the Government's Three Waters plans.
Council ownership of waters entities confirmed
The Government has confirmed local council ownership and strengthened local voice by accepting the vast majority of the Three Waters Working Group recommendations on representation, governance and accountability, Infrastructure Minister Grant Robertson and Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced today.
“Fundamentally these reforms are about delivering clean and safe drinking water at an affordable price for New Zealanders. Without reform, households are facing water costs of up to $9,000 per year, or the prospect of services that fail to meet their needs,” Grant Robertson said.
“Everyone accepts the need for change. You only have to look at the number of burst pipes, boil water notices and the volume of sewerage spewing into our harbours to see we can’t carry on as we are and that our water infrastructure is crumbling.
“At the heart of councils’ concerns have been the issues of ownership and voice, By accepting the majority of the recommendations made by the independent Working Group on Representation, including a shareholding plan, we have listened to these concerns and modified our proposals accordingly.
“With the key issues now addressed we cannot afford to wait any longer. The costs to communities and ratepayers are just too big to ignore and we need to get on with fixing it,” Grant Robertson said.
“The Working Group was tasked with addressing the issues of most concern to the sector and Cabinet has agreed to the majority of their recommendations that ensure councils, iwi and communities have a strong voice in the new entities,” Nanaia Mahuta said.
“I acknowledge the anxiety around change, but ratepayers and local communities cannot keep paying more and more for services that have been underinvested in for too long, and now put their health at risk.
“That’s why the Government has extensively engaged with local government, iwi and hapū, the water industry for more than four years to understand the case for change and assess the best option for reform.
“This is the best option to deliver the clean, safe and affordable drinking water New Zealanders deserve while also retaining community ownership and protecting against future privatisation.
“We are now at a point where the case for change is well made and the policy has been robustly tested and improved. We have listened to concerns and now is time to move forward with these reforms,” Nanaia Mahuta said.
In line with the Working Group’s recommendations the Government will:
• provide for a public shareholding structure that makes community ownership clear, with shares allocated to councils reflective of the size of their communities (one share per 50,000 people);
• further strengthen and clarify the role of the Regional Representative Group; with joint oversight from local councils and mana whenua to ensure community voice and provide tighter accountability from each water services entity board;
• maintain that board members are to be appointed based on skills and competency;
• strengthen connections to smaller communities including through local sub-committees feeding into the Regional Representative Group, to ensure all communities’ voices are considered as part of investment prioritisation; and
• recognise and embrace Te Mana o te Wai – the health and wellbeing of our waterways and waterbodies – as a korowai, or principle, that applies across the water services framework.
“The governance arrangement in the Regional Representative Group is not something that is new. Many councils already have co-governance arrangements in place, and acknowledge the importance and benefit of such arrangements,” Nanaia Mahuta said.
“For example the Waikato River Authority set up by the previous Government, established fifty-fifty co-governance around the Waikato River and is a good working model of shared decision making to improve the health of the river.
“The Regional Representative Group is not about ownership but rather ensuring community inclusion and voices are heard, securing a kaitiaki or guardianship role for the protection of our environment, and maintaining the focus on the long-term planning required for national infrastructure. It’s a model that makes sense and is already working well.
“Without the changes we are making all the evidence points to a legacy of broken pipes, outdated sewage plants, and potential repeats of the tragic Havelock North gastroenteritis outbreak that killed four people and made thousands sick. This should not be the case in a first-world country,” Nanaia Mahuta said.
How does the governance structure work for the Water Services Entities?
The Regional Representative Group (RRG) will represent the views of councils and mana whenua in the service area of the entity, and will set expectations and approve the strategic direction of the entity, but will not be involved in making operational decisions.
The Board will be appointed by the RRG, and is responsible for the day-to-day management and operations of the Water Service Entity.
The Regional Representative Group is responsible for governance. It will:
- Set performance expectations for the Water Services Entity in their area.
- Approve the strategy developed by the Board to give effect to those expectations.
·They are responsible for appointing, monitoring and, if necessary, removing entity board members on a skills and competency basis.
- Monitor board performance – they would do this by receiving and reviewing, for example, quarterly and annual reports against the Statement of Intent.
- Hold the Board to account for delivery of services on behalf of the communities they serve – for example, by meeting with the Board to ask questions about performance.
There's more detail in the attachments below.
And below is a press release from Local Government New Zealand
LGNZ welcomes momentum on water reform
LGNZ President Stuart Crosby says the Government’s decisions on the Three Waters Governance Working Group recommendations provide much-needed momentum, as well as certainty for ratepayers.
“Councils face big future bills for water services given the new regulator, the unknown condition of many pipes and the impact of climate change. Without reform, ratepayers will be hit in the pocket.
“Everyone in the local government sector is advocating for change to our three waters system, even those opposed to the Government’s model. No one thinks the status quo is sustainable.
“LGNZ is encouraged to see the Minister support the Working Group’s recommendations around making public ownership crystal clear, through a shareholding for councils. We also support the changes to strengthen communities’ and councils’ voices. These changes address key concerns and we’ve pushed hard for them.
“Without reform, many councils will struggle to meet new water standards, which will require significant investment over time. They will face prosecution by the new water regulator if they’re not meeting standards.
“All New Zealanders deserve safe drinking water – and our environment deserves first-world waste and stormwater services. That means fundamental change to how water services are funded and delivered – not in 10 or 20 years’ time but now.
“Our communities need certainty. They can’t afford the huge costs that come with doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. “LGNZ supports the Governance Working Group’s recommendations because they strengthen the model. Clarifying ownership protects against privatisation; and community connection is enhanced by adding subgroups to the Regional Representative Groups.
“Councils will play a critical role in three waters after reform. They will go from being involved in the operational delivery to being responsible for planning for growth and resilience, being the voice of their communities, and monitoring performance.”
99 Comments
Hands up who actually thinks ratepayers will get a reduction in rates after all of this is implemented. Will councils suddenly reduce the staff numbers or will they stay the same whilst central government whacks another layer of tax payer management in the pyramid.
... you nailed it ... more centralization policies from a government hell bent on pushing their madcap ideologies upon us , regardless of facts or opposition ...
This is wotcha get , NZ , for giving Arderns Circus a 50 % mandate in the 2020 election ...
... the nonsense continues unabated ...
It anything needs centralising surely it's got to be water? Current situation is a a diabolical mess. And the same can be said with the duplication regarding polytechs and health boards etc. Out total size is really only regional.
The increasing bureaucracy another issue and can be dealt to - a Nat govt might help here.
I don't expect actual reforms in public sector management from Luxon. He seems to be parroting his predecessors in their "cancel everything, do nothing" motto. Even Key got ministries to "outsourced" the huge costs of bureaucracy to their mates at consulting firms.
What we need is Seymour to bring a good number of MPs into a right-leaning coalition in 2023 and force a deep cut to wasteful public spending rather than simply reclassifying it.
It was a step in the right direction from the government but poorly implemented by the team of senior executives and consultants who drew tens of millions of dollars to get the job done.
We need more of these amalgamations but obviously with better execution because having 66 local councils plus 11 regional councils governing an ex-Auckland population of just over 3 million people is insanity.
what , you dont call the water supply and waste management issues right now a complete cluster @&$**#, just one outfit running the whole thing would be better and still way smaller than most world infrastructure systems...councils are full of incompetents on salary terrified of making decisiosn and elected populists councillors who know very little about infrastructure
You're right. We desperately need to de-politcise critical infrastructure, especially at the local level. I am all for setting up an autonomous Crown entity that builds and manages 3-waters.
Even better if this entity can fund its own operations by collecting user charges and raise debt financing, whenever required for capital projects.
Speaking in the Auckland context - Under National and the National Party Proxy local politicians, council's are forced to cut council jobs. The work (which still needs to get done) then gets outsourced to consultants and the private sector who are supposed to be more efficient. From my experience, the private sector is not more efficient, more often than not it just pays people way more so they get a better selection of candidates to do the job. You will still get excellent people working in the public sector on principle because they are motivated by doing good but you miss out on the excellent candidates that are motivated by great pay. These consultants then cost the ratepayer X2/3 times as much to do a job that in-house would have cost a fraction of the price because council can't afford to hire them directly. The private company then adds a hefty premium on top of that to make their profit. Everything within council then gets broken down into projects and silos (because that is how procurement of consultants works) and there is very little linked up thinking or working. You end up with different silos and project teams hiring consultants to do the same work or sometimes work that is directly in conflict. No-one has a good handle on what is going on because a lot of the IP is held outside the organisation and you need to pay to get it. It is highly inefficient and expensive but also highly profitable for the private sector which I assume is why National insist on carrying on with it.
Where fixing is paying the additional cost to employ people to drive around checking that contractors have done the job properly, and thinking this is cost-effective and efficient...
May well end up being more cost-effective to employ people to fix stuff properly, as used to be the approach.
Bollocks, Rastus.
This is us up against the Limits to Growth. Supply chain issues - so called - and and entropy at the other end of the sequence. We have seen the best we could achieve; that is behind us. GBH is right but wrong; both political ideologies relied on a growing draw-down of the planet; both are in trouble.
From here on, less globalism. From here on, more triage.
We will end up with local folk patching local systems; this Govt is of the past, as is the oppo.
Not sure what aspect the bollocks refers to. You are talking the growth game, not efficiency or waste.
Our waterways run across regional boundaries.
Flooding from one region spills into another region. Sucking out water from the Whanganui and spilling into Taupo required a national approach. Auckland requiring Waikato River water is a thing.
Roading systems run from one region to another under a national body
Water management at a regional level seems bonkers - has it worked?
I'm talking entropy. Ever-increasing decay, ever-increasing maintenance-demand. That from a system made from fossil feedstock, laid by fossil fuels....
Not sure you realise how close we are to global collapse. Those 'supply chain disruptions' are just not enough resources - including energy resources. And it's going to get worse. Permanently.
So there is ZERO chance that delivered water-quality improves, and ZERO that it gets cheaper.
Ironically, there is ZERO chance that Maori will 'own' it, either; owning assumes a society with enough surplus energy to administer, adjudicate and punish, re property-rights. I don't think that is anywhere near guaranteed.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/
you say global collapse as if it s a bad thing, its just a collapse of a stage...like the Roman Empire...human population is estimated to be zero growth by 2100 at 11 billion and you could fit everyone into Texas even then...we'll come out the other side if we don't nuke ourselves
Nope:
"Auckland Council will contribute 93% of the assets to the northernmost regional entity, and have a 90% shareholding based on population, but only a minority 4 seats out of 14 on the Regional Representative Group."
It's asset stripping from Auckland ratepayers to benefit Northland, just like they tried with the Port. It stinks.
Yes and the mayor (former Labour leader Phil Goff) was very vocal on this point but has been bought off (and silenced) by Labour with the plum job of High Commissioner to London. (Labour have done the same with another dissenter, Louisa Wall - giving her a plum no consequence high paying job to convince the highly conservative pacific islands to better accept the LGBTQ? community - good luck with that Louisa). Jacinda's 'most transparent govt in history' is as opaque as ever.
Yea, well now our infrastructure that we can't manage across one sprawled city has to be managed across the entire upper North Island. Given how quick Northland was to try and raid our Port from us, any more than a single seat at the table for all Northland interests is inviting risk of provincialism at Auckland's expense.
It's definitely a thing. There is royalty pushing through this legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanaia_Mahuta
Whether or not you make the cut depends on what your family tree looks like.
"“Our name Taumata Arowai was gifted to us by Hon Nanaia Mahuta, Minister of Local Government”.
Having your name “gifted” by the reigning minister has a North Korean feel to it. This body enjoys a Māori advisory board whom it must consult. The chair of this advisory body is the minister’s sister."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/128415598/the-shaky-claims-and-untested…
Just plain old corruption, which we seem to have trouble admitting exists in this country. We are getting more banana republic by the day. Noble cause corruption is just as abhorrent - even if it is under the guise of kindness, safety or levelling some playing field.
Yes exactly, we have our own form, while it does not meet the usual definition of corruption, it has exactly the same result.
There is something refreshing open and honest about paying cash to an official in a third world country, knowing that they are getting paid almost nothing, and what you are paying them is the equivalent of a tip as you do in a restaurant, rather than paying money in NZ and waiting for months and then with RFI's, regardless of them having a legal obligation to process your request within 20 working days.
The 'corruption' in NZ is silent and hidden, maybe incompetence is a better word. Eitherway you still pay the money.
"Last year the Government dropped a $2.5 billion dollar cash pot for councils to spend in a bid to get more mayors on board. But Newshub can reveal Treasury warned against the handout, essentially calling it a bribe.
"The financial incentives package is intended to increase local authority goodwill towards the reforms and reduce political barriers," Treasury wrote.
It also said the Government didn't provide any analysis for the cost of the package, nor any evidence it would be value for money."
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/04/treasury-warned-governm…
You are entirely correct that English makes use of loanwords from other languages. However, when you are communicating in English and the word exists in English then that word should be used. This prevents communication from descending into a pidgin or nonsensical gibberish.
It may superficially come across that way to those not paying attention, but astute observers would simply recognise adherence to the principle of Equality before the law, which is actually the opposite of institutionalised racism.
They used to add a few words in Greek, then Latin, then French and now Te Reo. It is not to add subtlety or brevity (try finding an accurate brief English equivalent to 'protege') but to boast about your superior knowledge. It has a secondary advantage of making recent immigrants feel just a touch uncomfortable. I'm happy my national anthem starts with verses in Te Reo; I'm proud and pleased my granddaughter learned to count in Te Reo at pre-school (similar to my learning roman numerals at a similar age).
Compare with use of American words in 'British & NZ' English: Disco, Cat nap, Head over heels - were they imposed by our academics and journalists to prove their cosmopolitan experience or were they adopted as loanwords from US films and books?
On this website with fairly erudite commentators I'm happy to have a few Te Reo words so long as I don't think I'm being talked down to. I prefer the full reply in Te Reo - or even those occasional comments in Mandarin.
Auckland may be the only city in New Zealand that has the economies of scale to provide water and sewerage infrastructure at first world level. Now Aucklanders will pay for their own water infrastructure and a top up to pay for everyone else. Co Governance is just a synonym for the right to tax. A slice off the top to flow through to the bank accounts of the few who co govern in the name of the many.
No, each water service entity is responsible for financing the supply of water services in its region. Your suggestion is about as silly as suggesting Wellington Electricity, for example, has a right to take Vector’s electricity lines revenues to subsidise the supply of electricity in the Wellington region. Not a thing.
The Government has confirmed local council ownership and strengthened local voice
Shameless hypocrisy. Local councils didn't want this in the first place, and now the government is patting themselves on the back for giving them a "voice"?
We already know what the government's idea of providing "safe drinking water" is; changing the definition of "safe":
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2203/S00215/government-proposing-incr…
... who says that " the whole country's water infrastructure urgently needs replacing " ... ?
Apparently , 80 % of Kiwis received 100 % pure drinking water for the last 365 days from their local councils ...
... are us 80 % who're well managed expected to subsidise the 20 % who aren't , and cede 50 % of our water assets to unelected boards of Maori ?
For more than 100 years local bodies have organised the delivery of water for their communities. Govt has at times subsidised the building of larger infrastructure. The 'ridiculous' approach has worked for all this time. The difference is that in the last couple of decades local structures have been changed, the RMA has been in effect and the govt has not adequately funded the councils infrastructure needs but has increased immigration that has put a burden on this infrastructure.
Adequate funding for local water infrastructure has been used as a vehicle to give iwi elites control over water infrastructure, permits for irrigation and anything to do with agricultural land development that requires water.
So this 3 waters bill is about a power grab by a small non-elected elite that will be wide open for bribes and corrupt practices, a structure that will have to be supported by govt finance or loans.
So this new structure will be a good vehicle for the bribery of iwi politicians by Chinese agricultural companies to access irrigation permits that will be denied to the local land owners who are unable to afford the bribe or unwilling do do a diploma in treaty issues understanding.
The Labour Maori caucus have pushed this through out of greed, but it will backfire on them in the times to come. The rest of the Labour caucus are too short sighted to understand who has actually been manipulating the process.
... we have delicious and abundant water where I live , and have so for decades ... a stellar track record of the local council getting it right ...
Bugger off , Labour ... you'll only stuff it up for us , like you've stuffed up every other thing you've touched since 2017 !
But they are making us safe Gummy, safe I tell you.
"Annual Report on DrinkingWater Quality 2019–2020
During the reporting period, data indicates that:
• 96.7 percent of the report population (4,003,000 people in 396 supplies) received drinking-water that complied with all the legislative requirements under the Act
• 98.0 percent of the report population (4,060,000 people in 464 supplies) received drinking-water from a supply with a water safety plan for which implementation had begun
• 99.97 percent of the report population (4,141,000 people in 477 supplies) received an adequate supply of water with appropriate notification of any interruptions
• 99.96 percent of the report population (4,140,000 people in 476 supplies) received drinking-water from a supply for which appropriate source protection activities took place
• 99.4 percent of the report population (4,117,000 people in 428 supplies) received drinking-water that met all the monitoring requirements in the Standards
• 99.5 percent of the report population (4,062,000 people in 469 supplies) received drinking-water that met the requirement for record-keeping
• 99.9 percent of the report population (4,139,000 people in 479 supplies) received drinking-water from a supplier that met the requirement to investigate complaints
• 99.5 percent of the report population (4,123,000 people in 463 supplies) received drinking-water from a supplier that took adequate remedial action when required"
Annual Report on Drinking Water Quality 2019-2020 (health.govt.nz)
Love it.
'We've listened and implemented recommendations that reflect what we've heard'
Except the main, and loudest criticism, that 50-50 split between elected representatives and Iwi on strategic control....
Can't wait to vote this lot out.
We must all be political, legal and moral equals. Any other system of government is immoral.
All political power comes from the people.
You can vote in whoever you want, it's not going to change the courts interpretation of Te Tiriti - unless you want to absolve the judiciary as well?
So many pakeha seem to be ignorant of the situation and believe National/Act are going rise in on white horses to save you from the natives. That's not going to happen.
https://www.environmentguide.org.nz/issues/freshwater/freshwater-manage…
Even the natives couldn't save the natives from the natives.
They arrived here because of (island) overshoot. It's always the cause, as it was the imperative for Cook's voyages.
They overshot the carrying-capacity. And fought each other.
And did exactly what you'd expect post-battle; took advantage of the fresh protein.
Not a precedent with much future.
You're right.
The treaty is de facto an immoral document as it denies the fundamental moral equality of all human beings. Fair enough. It was 200 years ago. There was a lot of discrimination based on sociodemographic characteristics happening all over the shop, all of which is fundamentally immoral.
There was also a lot of wrong done by the crown.
That's why my preferred path forward for this nation would be to settle all of the claims under the Waitangi Tribunal, then renounce the queen and our connection to the idea that the random accident of birth matters and become a republic with full and equal moral, political and legal rights for all citizens of age. This is the only way.
Everything else requires discrimination based on race. Not good. Immoral. Backward. It's 2022.
Sooo...... Now the councils will have nothing to do, except building and local roads. What are the chances of the rates going down?
Only joking, there is no way that Three Waters will get implemented prior to the next election, and it will be the main point Labour will lose the election on. Hard to believe considering so many other failures to choose from.
"Without reform, households are facing water costs of up to $9,000 per year, or the prospect of services that fail to meet their needs,” Grant Robertson said. Classic scaremongering if every there was any, Grant. I roof-capture, filter and sterilise my own house water and have an efficient, non-polluting passive septic system all set up for not much more than two years worth of Grant Robertson's $9k per year "big stick threat" but I guess I will probably still have to pay central government for this latest exercise in 'co-governance' that is called Three Waters. I bet the Iwi management fees will make quite a dent in user charges too.
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.