Following criticism and feedback from local government of its Three Waters policy, the Government now plans to establish 10 new regionally led entities instead of four.
Local Government Minister, Kieran McAnulty, made the announcement in Greytown, Wairarapa on Thursday morning.
He said he’d worked closely with local government leaders over the past few months to find ways to progress the “long overdue water infrastructure reforms”.
“The feedback has been overwhelmingly clear that our water infrastructure deficit needs to be addressed now if we’re to save households from ballooning bills that will make water unaffordable. But also that the reform programme must be led at a regional level - we have listened closely and absolutely agree,” McAnulty said.
Extending the number of publicly owned water entities to 10 will give every district council representation over their local water services entities. These entities would be jointly-owned by the councils in each of the 10 regions and would be governed by a professional board.
Credit rating agencies will consider these entities to be independent from local governments provided no individual council had a “very significant or controlling interest”.
This is important for getting the water assets off council balance sheets which will allow the entities to borrow significant sums of money with central government backing.
Local communities will have influence over the 10 entities through regional representative groups, which will be a partnership between the councils and iwi.
The group would provide strategic oversight and direction, but play no role in day-to-day operations of the entities. Its main responsibility would be appointing a professional board to independently govern each of the water services entities.
Controversy to remain
The policy change allows for local government to have more say in water management but doesn’t address the two most contentious issues: Māori co-governance and water assets being removed from council balance sheets.
Ardent opponents of the reform have described co-governance as a sort of “racism” and balance sheet separation as “theft.”
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins handed the local government portfolio to McAnulty in January and tasked him with delivering a new version of Three Waters, which has been rebranded as “affordable water reforms”.
On Monday, Hikpins told reporters the new name was necessary as the old one had become “confused” and overly-politicized.
“Fundamentally, it’s about water infrastructure and it’s about making sure that we’re dealing with the country’s water infrastructure deficit. Let’s call it what it is; it’s about making sure we have affordable water infrastructure improvements.”
“There is a massive bill coming down the pipeline, if you’ll excuse the pun, in terms of upgrading our water infrastructure. That’s what these reforms are about.”
McAnulty said the cost of needed infrastructure upgrades was projected to be up to $185 billion over the next 30 years, something local councils cannot afford and would require rates to increase significantly.
“Leaving councils to deal with this themselves will lead to unaffordable rate rises. It would be setting councils up to fail and I can’t in good conscience do that”.
The proposed reform will save households somewhere between $2,770 and $5,400 in annual rates by 2054, on average, the Government says.
National Party Local Government spokesperson Simon Watts said rebranding Three Waters wouldn’t fix New Zealand’s water infrastructure.
“The message from Kiwis is very clear – they want local water assets in local hands, and with no divisive co-governance structures imposed on them,” he said in a statement.
New Zealanders don’t care about the number of entities, rather they care about retaining ownership and control. The rejigged proposal still shifts ownership away from local councils.
“National will restore council ownership and control, but with stronger central government oversight, including strict rules for water quality and for investment in infrastructure, so Kiwis don’t have to worry about sewage on their streets, un-swimmable beaches, or having to boil their drinking water”.
Credit rating agency S&P Global Ratings said there would be “winners and losers” under the Three Waters reforms in a report published in February.
“For some local councils, no longer having to manage and pay for drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater infrastructure will lighten the debt load.
For others, handing control to four publicly owned "water service entities" or WSEs may crimp operating margins and increase debt-to-operating ratios”.
The report said all parties agreed that New Zealand water infrastructure wasn’t “up to scratch” although politicians “haggle over the way to fix the situation”.
National has proposed forcing councils to set aside money for water infrastructure, instead of spending it on other services, allowing them to retain direct ownership.
The Taxpayers’ Union, a small government pressure group that has opposed the reforms, said increasing the number of entities “misses the point” critics have been making.
“Forcibly removing assets from councils undermines the property rights of the ratepayers who have funded them over many decades,” said campaigns manager, Callum Purves.
Reform was necessary to finance future upgrades, but could be done by giving councils a cut of GST on new developments or allowing water delivery bodies to issue revenue bonds.
93 Comments
Exactly. Or if some of the existing regional or unitary Councils are too small, why not amalgamate to create 10 powerful regional councils. If they were given a proper funding base. Like a share of the local construction related GST then this would reinvigorate local democracy to meet our future infrastructure needs.
If it's creating entities more like Watercare with its level of financial and political separation from the council, then it'll probably perform better. Watercare inherited a mess but has been doing a creditable job of building back up, and benefits from having money collected for waters now being spent on waters.
Just think how different the NZ political scene could have been if instead of saying
Sure but it's pathetic isn't it? All that matters is policy. Jacinda should be required to show she's more than lipstick on a pig. Will she be
Gareth Morgan had said
Labour should be required to show that the change is deeper than a simple change of leader.
It could have changed the narrative around TOP (unless he ballsed it up in another way) and got those precious extra votes
The only people who took exception to what Gareth Morgan said were those who spend too much time looking for things to be offended about. The "pig" in this analogy refers to the Labour party, not Jacinda Ardern. The only one who has any reason to be offended about that comparison is the pig.
Hipkins signalled co-governance would not be withdrawn in his interview on Newshub where he was at pains to apologise to Mahuta about everything under the sun. He is obviously now as disempowered in caucus as his predecessor. The Maori faction is back in control. Didn’t take long did it.
Why would you allow determined polluters to have any control over water quality ?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/252230/ngai-tahu-appeals-dairying-d…
The Hurunui is a fragile environment, this huge development is a water disaster.
South Island iwi Ngai Tahu is appealing against a decision declining an application to develop large scale dairy farms in North Canterbury
Says it all. Corporate greed no matter what your skin colour.
It is not race that defines us but our own values - these are not anchored to race.
I have kayaked many small and medium rivers and half a dozen times have come upon remote areas at the back of a property where rubbish has been dumped into the river/bank. Cars/whiteware/carcases you name it.
In every case the property was owned by someone who has made public statements about caring for the river.
Look after the environment in the same manner as the neighbourhood. Tagging and vandalism is disproportionately but not exclusively in low decile areas.
As Te Kooti will tell you, I’m a racist POS or was that Brock? Why in gods name would you want a partner based on race when virtually every negative social statistic is amplified in Maori? Screw co-governance. Give me an Asian, give me an Indian.
The root cause of all this are the councils inability to spend wiseley and for decades have frittered ratepayers money away on personal goodies and freebies. Even now there is no sign of it stopping. My rates have more than doubled over the last 7 years.
This has left the opening clear for Ma Hooter incorporated to sail in and do the water grab.
Sadly Labour has also frittered away precious taxpayer funds saddling the country with enormous debt.
Clearly the answer has to be to reign in the councils then gift each council a an amount based on the number of ratepayers. But does the country have enough borrowing power or is it really bankrupt!
Local government spending is a tiny proportion of total government spending. The country spends more on one part of social welfare - superannuation - than it does on local government activities.
P.S the largest expenditure line item for most Councils is road maintenance, which is hardly frivolous spending.
I would say road maintenance is frivolous spending, well at least the way my council does it. Fix it once fix it right but it seems they are constantly fixing.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2021/12/reports-find-attempt…. I have seen a bit of road about 4 square meters take more than a month to resurface. Bits they have resurfaced still have sticky tar seal on it years later. Roads that seem to be constantly maintained, as soon as the years of work is done, a few months later new works starts, it seems like its been going on for decades.
In 2017 of all allocated water for consumptive use 01% was for bottling, agriculture was 70%.
And bottling water doesn't have downstream damage of nitrates - though does have a plastics issue.
Arguably we probably have more sustainable and valuable industry of water export's then dairy - though dairying is killing it.
Have no problem with water being extracted, bottled and exported provided it is fairly paid for at source just as per any natural resource such as coal, or gas.To take water and pay nothing for it on the basis of and historic consent based for instance on a long ago ceased scouring plant, is both inequitable and a sham.
The Taxpayers Union put it aptly:
Instead of forcibly removing waters assets from district councils and transferring them to four unaccountable, co-governed entities, the Government now proposes to forcibly remove water assets from district councils and transfer them to ten unaccountable, co-governed entities.
Hang on, I missed something. Does National have a way to make water infrastructure affordable?
I guess I can trust that separation of water assets from already bankrupt councils can lead to better borrowing costs, effectively borrowing as the government. So, less pressure on rates. Unless someone explains how that part is a lie.
Does the National idea do anything equivalent, or better? We need a long term answer here.
Governments have worked this out before. For instance meat processors were provided government backed loans by the trading banks to upgrade processing to EEC standards in the 1960s. Similarly here the government can fund councils, those that actually need it that is, to upgrade their water services. The councils will then have to pay interest and their ratepayers will then perhaps be more proactive in ensuring in future the council concerned pays better attention to maintenance of essential services rather than vainglorious projects that may or may not look nice and provide nothing more than that.
This 'change' is not driven by the reaction of the general public to the 3 waters mess. For Labour the general public does not count until election time.
This change is driven by iwi. I doubt that Te Arawa for example want Waikato tribes telling them what to do with their lakes. It has now dawned on many iwi leaders that this is not just a Maori power grab but also a larger Maori tribe power grab.
So this redrawing of the areas will still be along tribal lines but done according to which iwi have the biggest say within the Labour caucus.
3 waters is a terrible Labour mistake that is going to dog them for years to come.
Elected council representatives in the main, have shown that they will spend depreciation for 3 waters assets to keep rates low which is why we're in this mess in the first place. They have proven to be untrustworthy, which is the main reason why their removal from day-to-day decisions (such as investments and water charges) gives lenders confidence.
I support depoliticising water infrastructure investment for these reasons, but not in this way.
Conversely. Central government politicians know that voters limit the power of local government to do anything (such as fixing infrastructure deficits) because the local government rates based revenue system is so narrow. Yet central government will not fix this problem instead preferring centralization solutions that can benefit their key lobby groups. Iwi in the case of Labour. Privatizing business groups in the case of National.
Also there are ways to increase the voter turnout for local government - especially for younger voters - which would improve the incentives of councils to tackle longterm infrastructure deficits. Obviously if Councils were more capable (because they were incentivised by infrastructure funding and financing tools) then voters would take them more seriously. Another option would be align the local government election date with the national election date. This has been done in some US states and has resulted in a significant rise in voter turnout. Especially for younger voters.
For me voter turnout for local body elections is low because I and I think most people really know very little about the councilors that they are voting for. What is the point of voting for someone when you really don't know anything about them, apart from how they look and a 1 sentence slogan on their billboard. I have gone to a meet the prospective councilors session but basically they talked for few minutes each, hardly enough for me to form a strong opinion.
I hear the argument in the media that people should vote, but why if you don't know who to vote for, aren't you just diluting the say of people who know and care.
Hipkins is being quoted as saying something along the lines that he could not in good conscience allow rate payers to be faced with unaffordable rates bills. But each of these entities being created will have the ability to raise funds to carry out their business. Where will they get those funds from? While it is not stated, I'd guess they will be levying a water bill on all rates payers. So not only will we continue to have to pay, but we will be paying more because each one of these entities will be employing it's own staff, have its own costs and so on. The end result? We can all expect to pay more - as lot more!
If it's lipstick on a pig, its a very cheap and nasty one!
Under no circumstance can anyone justify that unelected people selected from a specific 16% of the population should gets 50% of control over NZ natural resources (and get its own health system). Even suggesting this is political suicide - as most of the remaining 84% will now voting for anyone else.
Its simply undemocratic and unrealistic in a democracy -> Chippy must have known the election will be won or lost on this co-governence issue when he took the reigns. It seems he was unable to solve the issue - and he has just lost the election by a massive margin. Wouldnt be surprised if he is gone before the election now.
Cant wait to see the next polls. I wouldnt be surprised if Labour becomes a marginal party and end up merged with their co-party. Regardless my issues witg nationals populist and likely right wing policies i will now do everything i can to vote them in to stop this nonsense.
I am all for fairness and everyone being equal btw. 110% believe in that philosophy. And unfortunately for Labour - thats the point.
PS- the very people that are pushing the cogovernenace agenda are the ones who will lose the most when labour lose - i just dont get why they didnt 'water' it down. lol
Why the hell doesn't the government just found an infrastructure investment bank to provide loans to central, regional and local government to fund infrastructure? It can provide the assessments of the returns, finance the work and then local government entities don't need to fund these bonds themselves.
It is beyond me why these solutions can never be clear. Instead, we are going to get a rebranding of three waters with the media spin of "we got the balance right".
This Labour government has been the most deceptive, dishonest and backhanded ruling party in my lifetime. The endless dishonesty (three waters, firearms law) , secret legislative agenda (surveillance law, he puapua), pushing controversial legislation under urgency (abortion law in secret during the first covid lockdowns), politicization of the courts (check out who has been appointed to the bench since 2017). The cultural revolution through media influence and funding, in the name of 'public interest journalism'. They are an absolute poison chalice party.
The worst part is the opposition is completely useless. The best they can do is propose trading laws open up to rob people of a guaranteed day off on easter. Throw these corrupt, nepotistic leftists out of office and reverse all the legislative changes they have imposed since they got in. The whole problem with 'conservatives' is they never do anything to push back and take ground off these left, they just accept all the imposed changes of the previous order.
I still think TOP's proposal is best;
- Maintain Crown funding through Crown Infrastructure Partners.
- Create a national 30-year water infrastructure strategy, funded via 30-year infrastructure bonds issued by the Crown.
- Set up a Ministry of Water Works to commission and oversee the infrastructure upgrades required.
- Create an Alliance Contracting Model to work on rolling 10-year delivery plans building on the SCIRT and Watercare models.
- Ensure iwi interests in water are addressed at the local level.
https://www.top.org.nz/three_waters
I think TOP need to articulate how they would help make local democracy work in NZ. Implicit in their proposal (as Kate you detail above) is the Crown would partner with local government. The problem though is local democratic institutions in NZ are too weak to be proper partners. Most local council election campaigns resolve around cutting rates - which is achieved by underspending on long term infrastructure assets. TOP need to articulate how they will strengthen local government. Their proposal to give Councils a share in locally generated construction GST would incentivise councils to proactively invest in basic infrastructure like 3-waters, is a good start. IMO they should work on other policy initiatives like that to get local democracy working for NZ.
"Most local council election campaigns resolve around cutting rates - which is achieved by under spending on long term infrastructure assets."
A problem is the spending on vanity assets, rather than infrastructure assets.
The other problem with local councils, due to poor election turnouts, one gets a number of non entity councillors who are really not fit for the job.
Personally I have predominately voted for labour or national for the past 50 years of elections, apart from Values at the beginning. So I am a centrist most likely, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. Also, I was involved in student politics in my youth, now that WAS an education.
But I now find that I don't trust Labour and don't like National, would not vote for either.
I could have joined a political party to have a say on policy rather than only having a vote every 3 years, but unless you are at the top trough, you get no where, as to get there you have to brown nose so many other people, and that is not my style. The other alternative is to moan and groan, and that causes one to become a total cynic, rather than just a cynic, or is this being cynical?? WTF
So I joined TOP, to piss everyone off. A smaller party but where one can have a say and be listened to politely.
Why don't we all.
Just a thought
Not if there are sufficiently pissed off people, numbers count, and I believe there are a lot of pissed off people, so become a band of sisters and brothers (being a little woke here, apologies).
Have a concern, talk to Raf, raf@TOP.govt.nz
Voting top is effectively throwing your vote away
This sort of mentality is absolute rubbish, and a good way to ensure that our only two choices remain either "bad" or "worse".
If you vote for a party which would have gotten in even without your vote, has that vote been wasted too?
I think people have to be tactical. For me that’s party vote ACT and local vote National. The reason is I think national can win the local vote, but I prefer ACT to at least have a say in what national do. If TOP get 5% and it is an if that will give them what influence? I’m really concerned with the direction of this country and at this stage will be leaving. I don’t like national but anyone with half a brain can see co governance is a disgrace, and the shit they are about to push is schools makes my skin crawl.
Yes, I think I'll vote the same...
ACT leader David Seymour said Labour’s “powerful Māori caucus” had won out over Hipkins.
“Co-government remains part of Three Waters because the prime minister was either too scared to stare down the powerful Māori Caucus, or he did and he lost.”
The problem is the system and we are all stuck in it. We could move to a ranked vote (I doubt any major party would do that) and the your vote would not be wasted. I would also like to have the option of I don't like any of you that I could put at the top. I think that take politicians down a peg or two, no more pretending that they have the support of the population, just that they are best of a bad bunch.
Easy!!!
I would like people to really get involved and be positive. Take time to read the policies of the parties that do not get a great deal of media attention, they may be pleasantly surprised. I discussed my ideas with TOP, and actually got a direct response from Raf Manji, quite impressed with that, try it.
I quite like TOP. They're not perfect but they feel like the only party that has any answers to some very complicated problems that the other parties seem happy to ignore. I've been impressed by Raf Manji.
I really don't like the direction Labour is taking the country in but I also know I wouldn't like the direction National would take us in. 30 years of short-term thinking from Nat/Lab have left us in a pretty poor state. It's naive to say all of our current problems are from the current government, it's been a team effort that has led us down this path.
I think we could really be helped out by lowering the threshold from 5 percent down to something more reasonable so we could get some more voices in Parliament. Or bring in a transferable vote so people don't feel like they have to vote strategically. People would be more likely to engage with the political process if they feel like they are being properly represented.
If we continue voting the same way every time and expect things to change, nothing will, so make a change and vote for TOP, at least they have new ideas, not like same old same old same old that the 2 main and subsidiary parties .
If you want change, make a change
I agree if essential public services like delivering clean water, taking away dirty water, and preventing important areas from flooding is placed under system where the unelected elite of 16% of the population has veto power over its delivery and other important details - like who pays - this is a huge precedent. Basically all public services could follow that model and NZ walks back its history of democratic government being based on equal rights for all citizens.
Got that wrong, raf@top.org.nz
Kiwis deserve more than a band-aid fix to the broken Three Waters proposal
Posted by Raf Manji on April 13, 2023 · Flag
The Government’s recent announcement to push ahead with Three Waters, and creating ten new water entities instead of the previously announced four, is just another band-aid solution, says The Opportunities Party.
Leader of The Opportunities Party, Raf Manji, calls for the tap to be turned off on Three Waters citing some fundamental issues with the proposed water infrastructure plan have not yet been improved.
The shift towards a 10-entity structure is a move that tries to reconcile the opposition at a local government level, but as Manji points out, “we’re still concerned about the financial structure of the proposed new water entities.”
Manji continues to call for the Government to establish a Ministry of Water Works to develop a 30-year infrastructure plan to upgrade our water infrastructure creating economies of scale. The infrastructure plan would be funded by Central Government and iwi interests would be addressed at a local level. The Ministry of Water Works would also work closely with the newly established water regulator, Taumata Arowai.
Another contentious feature of the refreshed Three Waters proposal is the balance sheet separation which some opponents have described as asset theft. By establishing off-Crown balance sheet entities, the Government is simply shifting debt obligations, but increasing costs and introducing a higher risk profile. Local Government is being asked to move 30 percent or more of its balance sheet and transfer those assets to new and untested structures.
“Without a strategy for what the future of Local Government structures will look like, it’s just a highly risky proposition that doesn’t prepare for any future changes.”
The Opportunities Party believes that the Three Waters proposal needs to be urgently reconsidered. “If we want to ensure safe and clean drinking water and a wastewater system that works, we need to establish a cheaper, more secure and efficient funding model to oversee water infrastructure upgrades in New Zealand.”
Hipkins promotes co-governance as he needs the Maori vote and doesn’t want to see it eroded by the Maori party. The Maori caucus have him by the balls.
Grow a set. One person, one vote. And that holds true for trans GBQ or whatever the vogue term is. But F criminals, they shouldn’t get the vote
Why can’t the government just set up a fund to offer money and resources to councils for water infrastructure at government bond type interest rates? Obviously to access that councils would have to meet stringent criteria to ensure resources are allocated efficiently. The government might even be able to provide lawyers, IT, engineers, and means of purchasing materials at the lowest cost all for the benefit of councils and their ratepayers.
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.