Water Myths
What is ownership if councils and communities have no say in how their assets can be used?
Community involvement will be extremely limited. Councils and Mana Whenua will appoint a regional representative board, which will appoint an independent selection panel, which will then appoint the water company boards. Lots of layers but no voice for councils or ratepayers - representing a total loss of property rights for the ratepayer owners of the water assets.
The voice of provincial New Zealand will be drowned out.
There is no evidence of this.
One example of what is happening around New Zealand, is that in the last year there was a 31 per cent increase in the number of new homes being consented in Canterbury. Water services are ready and waiting for these new homes.
It’s a similar story elsewhere. The biggest problem faced by builders and developers is finding enough staff and working round material shortages.
Under current funding arrangements, councils developers meet the cost of infrastructure for new developments or councils borrow the cost of doing the work and recover this through rates in the years that follow.
There have been sporadic instances of sewage overflow getting into the storm water network, often related to major weather events.
Three Waters makes no mention of how it will improve stormwater - or even set - stormwater standards, so it’s hard to know how this will be solved through reform, or how much that would cost.
Three Waters is based on the Scottish Water model – which is no role model for environmental performance. Scotland is currently facing a sewage leak crisis, with Scottish Waster being held to account. New Zealand needs a model that will work for us.
A working group, with local government and iwi representatives that have been hand-picked by the Government, is currently looking at the reform plan but is constrained by red-lines in its terms of reference on what it can recommend.
These savings are unlikely to materialise.
A global economic consultancy’s review of the Government’s model commissioned by the Whangārei District Council, concluded that the model was founded on unsound evidence and faulty analysis. Further, Castalia said that “the promised benefits of reform are unlikely to materialise. There are risks to the Whangārei community from losing control of water services, and accountability of those tasked with governance to local customers.”
This is sufficient cause for concern for all communities around New Zealand.
The Castalia review concluded that the Government’s model was founded on unsound evidence and faulty analysis.
It reported that the Government’s model overstated the required investment and that its efficiency estimates were implausible.
Communities 4 Local Democracy firmly believes that communities across New Zealand can have better water quality through a reform model that supports community involvement.
All councils nationwide began taking part in the reform process in good faith, on the understanding that reform was voluntary, and that individual councils could choose to opt-out.
We were also told there would be an opportunity to engage with our communities ahead of transferring strategic assets.
However, before that engagement was complete, the Government announced an about-face – it would now push ahead and mandate council involvement in these reforms.
Community confidence in the integrity of the process has been destroyed.
The Castalia report found that the Government’s model was entirely based on a top-down, New Zealand-wide assumption that a massive nationwide investment programme is necessary for all council water services.
Capital investment is needed in some parts of New Zealand now and over the next 30 years.
However, it is not clear that the investment is needed in all places, at the scale claimed by the Government.
Boiled water notices can be brief, precautionary responses to isolated incidents, or can be in response to more widespread or long-lasting problems.
Although the number may be right, this is a tiny percentage of the population. To put things into context:
Most communities around New Zealand have excellent water infrastructure.
There are some smaller councils that lack the funds required to invest as much as they would like into their water infrastructure.
Our objective is an alternative model which would enable local ownership and local say while creating additional funding options.
Community involvement will be extremely limited. Councils and mana whenua will appoint a regional representative board, which will appoint an independent selection panel, which will then appoint the water company boards.
Lots of layers but no voice for councils or ratepayers - representing a total loss of property rights for the ratepayer owners of the water assets.
The voice of provincial New Zealand will be drowned out.
A future Government will still be able to vote to remove any constraints before taking steps to privatise the water assets.
At best, the present Government’s proposals would only make transparent a future Government’s desire to privatise these assets by requiring it to remove these constraints before privatising. This would simply require 61 votes in Parliament (a majority in a 120 Parliament).
This opens to door to a future Government claiming it needs the money from full or partial privatisation (as occurred with our electricity sector).
Every community across New Zealand currently has elected representatives who can be held to account if you are unhappy with your water.
You can call them, meet with council staff and present any concerns to the council’s monthly meeting.
You can also have your say on your council’s strategic direction, investment priorities and charging through its annual and long term plans.
The proposed water companies are likely to have as much of a relationship with customers as you currently do with other utilities such as internet or electricity.
The Government reforms propose forcibly taking control of assets that generations of our ratepayers built up and paid for.
It will put them into what will be four of the largest companies in New Zealand and then denying our communities their say in how those companies are run.
That’s redefining New Zealanders’ understanding of property ownership.
Established almost 20 years ago, Scottish Water recently self-reported a 40 percent increase in recorded sewage spills over the last five years thanks to a sewer network that can’t cope.
It’s only required to monitor less than 3 percent of its 3697 sewer overflow pipes – so the problem could be much worse.
New Zealand needs a model that will work for us, rather than importing a broken model that can bring quick results to an impatient Government.