Local councillors might have more bums on seats at the regional water table, but the loser in the Government’s shake-up of Three Waters is ratepayers, writes political editor Jo Moir
Opinion: Save costs and share the burden was the whole point of new water infrastructure services.
The Government’s inability to properly explain that, and the Opposition’s intentional misframing of co-governance has resulted in a watering down of the reforms and ratepayers paying more than necessary.
Local Government Minister Kieran McAnulty and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins must be wondering how they’ve ended up selling a worse version of Three Waters, that is less affordable, all so a few extra councillors can sit at the table when decisions are made.
READ MORE: * Water reforms cost more than money * Q&A: Who should pay for desperately needed Three Waters work? * Water infrastructure to be taken off councils and run by big regional authorities
While local government and democracy has a place in decision making, it shouldn’t come at the expense of water and rates costing people thousands more dollars, especially in a crippling economic environment.
Thursday’s announcement proposing the four water entities will be replaced by 10 is nothing more than a political exercise to satisfy smaller councils worried their voices wouldn’t be heard amongst bigger and louder councils.
If ratepayers were sat down and told their council could have more of a voice or they could have an extra $3,000 a year on average in their back pockets, it’s a no brainer which one they’d choose.
Instead, the loud minority (that is councillors) have argued for more people and power at the table, which has resulted in six extra entities to group a smaller number of councils together to achieve that goal.
Sharing the burden remains, cost savings not so much.
This is an economies of scale debate and by having more councils grouped into fewer entities more money can be saved on water infrastructure.
McAnulty told Newsroom if the alternative is the status quo and ratepayers suffering 100 percent of the cost, which is $185 billion in upgrades over the next 30 years, then he’s happy to settle on some savings over none.
The co-governance element of the water reforms is a step removed from the professional board making the decisions, but again, a failure to explain this has allowed the narrative to run away.
But if the extent of the savings under the four entities had properly been explained in the first place, chances are people would have been more supportive.
Instead, the former local government minister Nanaia Mahuta was hung out to dry selling the reforms under the leadership of then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and unsurprisingly, opponents of the Government’s plan decided to use that vacuum to concentrate on the co-governance aspect.
In fact, the governance groups that make the day-to-day decisions don’t have any requirements when it comes to mana whenua representation.
Sitting beneath the governance groups are the regional representative groups – every territorial authority owner will be represented in this group and there will be an equal number of mana whenua representatives.
This group is in charge of selecting the professional board, which McAnulty says is made up of members “appointed on competency and skill”.
The co-governance element of the water reforms is a step removed from the professional board making the decisions, but again, a failure to explain this has allowed the narrative to run away.
Hipkins has been upfront about the way Mahuta was mistreated and the burden that was placed on her and seems set on not repeating that.
That is too little too late though for rescuing the most cost-effective option – fewer entities – and instead Hipkins must accept the less affordable reforms because of mistakes made in the past.
In a cost-of-living crisis where both National and Labour can’t stop talking about bread-and-butter issues, taking more money off ratepayers than necessary seems a dud political strategy.
Hipkins has hit the reset button since taking over the leadership and thrown plenty on the bonfire, but water infrastructure reform is crucial and can’t be kicked down the road for another decade.
That means working with what Labour’s been left for the sake of getting the majority of councils to agree to it.
McAnulty says the Government has “nailed it” by increasing the number of entities to 10, which translates to having fewer councils moaning about it.
These are councils made up of representatives who have in some cases very little mandate when local government elections on average garner turnout of about 42 percent of eligible voters.
Hipkins will be hoping the pleasing of councillors and mayors will shift the narrative away from co-governance and the public will delight in still getting some savings in their rates.
The status quo of councils dealing with water infrastructure on their own balance sheets isn’t sustainable, and mayors are united that it isn’t, and hasn’t, been working for some time as debt has crippled bank accounts.
It remains unclear whether National’s proposal to allow councils to voluntarily group together to access long-term debt funding would provide the economies of scale necessary to deal with the $185b bill.
National wants water infrastructure to remain locally owned, whereas the Government’s reforms shift it to being regionally owned but includes legislative measures to ensure water services won’t be privatised.
The quibbling over whether one council versus a group of regional councils should control water services will no doubt continue.
What both sides of the political divide can agree on is neither of their proposals save ratepayers as much as they could.
In a cost-of-living crisis where both National and Labour can’t stop talking about bread-and-butter issues, taking more money off ratepayers than necessary seems a dud political strategy.
