The government has lost its social licence around Three Waters reform in the face of overwhelming opposition, Communities 4 Local Democracy says.
It needs to listen to the community demanding better water reform rather than pushing forward with a plan that could deliver disastrous outcomes, the local government group said in its submission to the Finance and Expenditure committee on the government’s Water Services Entities Bill.
C4LD is a coalition of 31 territorial and unitary local authorities that was formed to develop and propose reforms to the government’s proposed Three Waters policy settings.
C4LD chair and Manawatū District Mayor Helen Worboys said thousands of submitters, most of them asset-owning local authorities, and the vast majority of those polled by various councils at points throughout this process, have all given the clear message that this isn’t the reform they want to see.
“We’ve put together a common sense, home-grown model that will work,” Worboys said.
“It’s a model that’s been developed with decades of real-life experience in New Zealand, not one lifted from a country nothing like New Zealand and developed by a government department with limited to no experience in infrastructure policy and utility regulation.
“C4LD’s approach to Three Waters reform is built upon, and extends, the Productivity Commission’s recommendations, and our approach is neither frivolous nor unusual.”
Read: Councils get Three Waters funding boost
The approach has as its foundation the principle that community property rights in Three Waters assets should be both respected and meaningful.
Also among its points is a request that the government amend its reform process and allow time for a revised approach to be reflected in draft legislation.
When it comes to decision-making on investments, asset owners should have discussions with local mana whenua that consider co-design and partnership arrangements that acknowledge and enable Te Tiriti-based pathways at a local and regional level.
Asset owners should also agree to commit to meeting health and environmental standards, once regulatory and performance standards are in place, within an appropriate time frame.
The regulatory framework should also specify a “backstop” provision that identifies a set of circumstances that would justify future Crown intervention if an asset owner was not making acceptable progress towards meeting those regulatory requirements.
Also read: Some rural suppliers may avoid Three Waters
On the issue of asset ownership, the Bill before the select committee has the assets of territorial and unitary authorities compulsorily transferred to the four new water services entities.
The submission argues this is a compelled transfer, not an agreed transfer.
“Further, the Bill only allocates to these councils a ‘share’ in one of the new water service entities proportionate to their population size, rather than being proportionate to the true value of the transferring assets. This ‘share’ only entitles them to vote on a possible (but highly unlikely) privatisation proposal. All other rights and obligations of the present owners of the Three Waters assets are extinguished.
“Quite simply, this Bill is expropriating without compensation the assets of councils held on behalf of their communities. This is legislation of the worse kind,” the submission says.
Worboys said the government prematurely selected a highly risky mega merger option without properly considering credible alternative options. It also focused on only one factor, scale.
“This contributed to premature selection of a preferred model following a relatively cursory review of the international experience. Other government centralisation ‘reforms’ appear to be under stress, most notably the polytechnic reforms into the mega-entity Te Pūkenga.”
Worboys said the inadequate understanding of other available policy reform options was a contributing factor to this position.
“It would be a disaster for New Zealand if similar policy failures were to replicate themselves in the water infrastructure sector because a similarly flawed approach to policy analysis was adopted.
“We were told that the select committee process would be the time that the public could finally get their say on Three Waters. We want the government to live up to that commitment and actually listen to what the overwhelming majority of the public is saying.”
