Recent comments in various media throughout New Zealand regarding Three Waters demonstrate the utter stupidity and gross political interference in local affairs by the neo-Marxist Ardern government in its planned seizure of all of New Zealand’s water resources.
The Three Waters Reforms forcibly removes from District and City Councils, billions of dollars' worth of assets which comprise all of New Zealand’s drinking, waste, and storm water systems.
Most Councils use these assets to borrow against to fund other high-cost projects such as roading, waste disposal and other public services. These assets do not belong to central government, having literally been paid for by generations of New Zealand ratepayers.
So why is the neo-Marxist Ardern government acting in such a belligerent, non-democratic and illegal manner and what are the implications for ordinary New Zealanders?
To answer this
question, it is necessary to look at a number of factors which, when taken
together, expose Ardern’s reasons and just what the downstream implications
will be. This article tries to “dig a little bit deeper” into the reasons
behind the confiscations:
- Claimed efficiency
of delivery and resulting quality outcomes
- Cost-benefit issues
and subsequent costs to ratepayers-the financial case
- Balance Sheet
implications for Councils
- Governance, Representation
and Management issues
- Role(s) of iwi/
Maori in Three Waters confiscation
- Owning and
controlling the water versus owning and maintaining the assets
- Political and
constitutional issues
Let us consider some
of the views expressed by various parties so far, in a little more detail:
1.Efficiency and
resultant quality
The argument put
forward by government in taking this totally undemocratic approach is that some
years ago, the town of Havelock North experienced a contaminated water supply
which affected many people. They claim that small authorities are struggling to
fund, maintain and upgrade their individual, localised systems, with some
larger places like Wellington experiencing significant problems due to old
piping.
Government believes a
totally centralised approach under four mega “Entities” covering all of New
Zealand, is better able to deliver quality outcomes than the 61 individual
District and City Councils doing their own thing. But little concrete evidence regarding
improvements in efficiency and/or quality resulting from the confiscations has so far been provided by government which
would justify the seizure of billions of dollars' worth of Councils’ assets.
Indeed, in some cases where Councils have
previously outsourced their water services and control to outside contractors,
such as the South Wairarapa District Council some years ago, the outcomes were
disastrous.
In spite of almost
half of all Councils now openly opposing the Three Waters confiscation, the
government is brazenly proceeding with its plans to confiscate and control all
water services assets in New Zealand.
2.Cost-Benefit
analysis and end costs to ratepayers-the financial case
It is surprising to
see that the Ardern government is not emphasising the claim that the
Three Waters Reforms will result in significant reductions in the cost of
delivering the three water services to ratepayers. If the end result of the
Three Waters Reforms was, convincingly, a substantial reduction in our rates,
would we not all be trumpeting the good news and saying “bring it on, Trev”?
Will the proposed
reforms deliver much lower water services costs to ratepayers or not? The
answer to that question is - it depends upon how confident you/we/the
government is that the 30-year projections based on overseas (not local)
experiences are both valid and reliable. The government’s financial case for
the reforms is totally based upon projections provided by accounting firm
Deloittes, which in turn, uses data from the Water Industry Commission for
Scotland (yes, Scotland!) in its highly questionable projections for what might
occur in New Zealand over the next 30 (yes, 30) years or so. Deloittes uses
Net Present Value (NPV) to project the costs and benefits of “reformed” water
services in 30 years’ time. Such
methodologies are notoriously speculative in the extreme and cannot possibly
control for a range of variables in such a long time period, such as variations
in interest rates and the discount rate (cost of capital) which can negate such
projections. NPV has several drawbacks. Changes in the discount rate over time
(in this case 30 years) can significantly affect projected cash flows. And it
is not possible to compare different sizes of projects, such as Auckland’s water
services with those of, say, Manawatu, using NPV. One would need to calculate
the NPV for each individual Council to obtain a clearer picture - in other
words, one size does not fit all in this case.
The official
Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) website also contains a disclaimer: “Current
(household) costs are not necessarily a good reflection of what funding is
required to meet the full costs of economic depreciation (that is, to provide
resources for asset maintenance and renewal). The website also projects NPV
increases in taxes of between NZ$4 billion and NZ$6 billion. I wonder where
these taxes will come from? Helicopters?
If there is an
overwhelmingly convincing case that individual households are guaranteed lower
water services costs from the government “reforms” over the next thirty years,
there would be singing and shouting from the rooftops, would there not? Smoke and Mirrors here.
3.Balance Sheet
Implications
Water services assets
comprise a substantial percentage of any Council’s total assets. They exist,
have real value, and comprise the fiscal security required for Councils to
borrow significant sums against, to fund other community projects like roading,
waste disposal and public amenities.
Not having these
assets as security will have a disastrous financial impact where Councils will
find it very difficult to raise capital. This is so basic as to be unbelievably
stupid, as anyone with an ounce of business understanding would see.
The Three Waters
confiscation does not have a sound financial basis for proceeding - if it did,
there would be no pushback from Councils and the public, would there?
And finally, with this
huge amount of money being available to “buy” the water services assets, why
not make this huge amount of money available to Councils by way of
interest-free loans or direct grants, to upgrade and maintain their services?
Because the Three Waters Reforms have nothing to do with cost
reduction, as we shall see.
4. Governance,
Representation and Management
This is where the real
reasons for the Three Waters Reforms become crystal clear. The water
services assets of all 61 District and City Councils in New Zealand are to be
owned and controlled by four (4) “mega” entities or corporate-type structures: Auckland
and Northland “Entity A”; the Western North Island “Entity B”; the Eastern
North Island and part of the Upper South Island “Entity C”; and the remainder
of the South Island, “Entity D”.
According to the
official DIA website governance and management diagram, there will be at least four
levels of governance, involving 61 separate Councils, in establishing the
boards of directors, who in turn will
govern the four entities which will in turn employ the management groups. This has to be one of the most ridiculous
governance and management structures imaginable, so much so that following the recommendations of a government
“Working Party”, an additional level of governance will now be added - Sub-Regional
representative groups reporting to the Regional Representative boards! Imagine
representatives of the 61 councils and an equal number of iwi/Maori
representatives all sitting at the same table! (Over 100 at once?) Unbelievable!
It is interesting to
note that our University Business Schools and the Institute of Directors in New
Zealand, have made no public comment on the proposed governance structures. Are
they so politicised that to criticise such an unbelievably stupid governance
arrangement might reflect adversely upon them? Overarching these convoluted and
absolutely unworkable structures is the use of “co-governance” boards of the
four entities comprising equal numbers of iwi/Maori and us “others” representing
each of the councils in their area. In turn, these four regional groups will be
responsible for ensuring the Boards of directors they appoint to run the operations
are “adequately competent both as a Treaty partner, and
with expertise in accessing matauranga Maori, tikanga Maori and Te Ao Maori
knowledge to inform the water entities activities.”
In addition to all of
this governance nonsense, there is the government’s statement of objectives of the
Crown/Maori relationship, set out in the official DIA website, Item 4. In other
words, the government’s primary list of
reasons for confiscating Councils’ water assets:
“Purpose - Enabling
greater strategic influence to exercise Rangitiratanga (ie chiefly/ tribal
rule) over water services delivery by:
A. Integration of
iwi/Maori rights and interests within a wider system
B. Reflection of a
(sic) holistic te ao Maori perspective for the relationship with the Treaty partner
C. Supporting clear
account and ensure roles, responsibilities and accountability
D. Improving outcomes
at a local level to enable a step change improvement in delivery of water
services for iwi/Maori (only Maori?)
These reasons lie at
the root of the Three Waters Reforms, as has been emphasised time and time again by various commentators, including many
prominent New Zealanders, and on NZCPR. See especially, recent posts by Dr
Muriel Newman and others.
But is the New Zealand public totally in
favour of “co-governance” when we are all supposed to be one nation? Are we ready
to accept te ao Maori views including spirituality, the “mauri” life force
within water; according human identity
to bodies of water such as the gender-neutral(?) Whanganui River;
embracing Tapu, Mana, Makutu and Rahui in our water systems? And above all,
accepting that the Treaty of Waitangi constituted an equal “partnership”
between the Crown and iwi/Maori when in fact it
simply accorded equal rights (not representation) to iwi/Maori as
British subjects? Is the New Zealand public willing to accept a situation where
local communities ostensibly “own” their water services assets but the control
of which lies with appointed, unelected, and unaccountable co-governance tribal
boards based upon ethnicity?
Given the opportunity,
the New Zealand public will flatly reject what is in fact an undemocratic,
race-based and disingenuous concept. But will we be given the opportunity?
5.Ownership or
control?
Threading its way
through this nonsense are two underlying principles which are getting lost in
the “Smoke and Mirrors” approach by Mahuta and Ardern. Are we talking about ownership
or control of both the water
itself and/or the assets and services by which water is provided and disposed
of?
Government illegal
ownership of the assets has been disputed and rejected by almost half the
61 Councils on the basis that local communities have paid for them over
generations so they are the property of local communities. Yes! QED! Government
control of the assets is equally stupid and unworkable under the “four
entities” structure proposed, as set out above in item 3. But these aspects are
not what Three Waters Reform is really about. Iwi/Maori have made it abundantly
clear they do NOT seek to own or co-own the assets - they are not
that stupid. Who, apart from the true owners, the ratepayer, would want to be
saddled with huge and costly assets which will always require maintenance and
upgrading? Certainly not 50% of iwi/Maori!
No, iwi/Maori are
seeking ownership of the water itself, not the reticulation systems.
Control is another thing. If you own the water itself and have at least half
the control of who gets it, how, when, at what cost, isn’t that a far more
attractive position than having to fork out for maintenance and upgrades?
Absolutely, as Ardern and Mahuta would say! And, the unthinkable suddenly
becomes a real possibility - that New Zealanders could well end up paying
iwi/Maori a royalty for using “their” water which they “own”. Such is the
incredibly bizarre situation in which we find ourselves today.
6.Political and
Constitutional issues
It is abundantly clear
now that the motivation behind Three Waters Reform is NOT at all to do with
efficiency and quality. The motivation is entirely political. Note the side-bar
reasons on the DIA website, mentioned above. The REAL reason for Three Waters,
along with other intentions to centralise essential public services such as
health, education (Polytechs) and Welfare (Oranga Tamariki, etc) is to give
effect to the not-so-secret reports (He Puapua and Matariki Mai Aotearoa)
proposing New Zealand being equally co-governed by iwi/Maori (16% of the
population) and the other 84% who are not Maori. The rationale of this bizarre
goal is a modern, presentist, re-interpretation of the Treaty of Waitang, claiming
an equal “partnership” between the Crown (which includes all Maori) and the
various iwi and hapu comprising the Maori population. This raises enormous
constitutional questions as it would be a complete rejection of democracy as we
know it. Yet, regrettably, the Ardern government will NOT discuss or debate
this with the public, only with Maori.
But as the sage TV
personality Blackadder would say, “I have a cunning plan”.
There IS a simple
solution to the overall intention to improve New Zealand’s future approach to
Three Waters:
- Empower Taumata Arowai,
with its government-appointed, co-governed, PC board, which is currently appointed to oversee
and regulate the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water, to also oversee, in
conjunction with Regional and Local Councils, catchments and storm water issues
as well. Regional Councils already oversee catchments and rivers plus other
environment-related water issues.
- Empower the 16 Regional
Councils to oversee, in conjunction with Taumata Arowai, the water services
needs of the Councils within their region- quality of drinking water (in
conjunction with Taumata Arowai), and storm water, in which they already
have a role with rivers and catchments.
- Continue to enable
Councils either individually or in conjunction with other nearby Councils, the
responsibility for their own unique wastewater requirements, but overseen by
Regional Councils to enhance inter-Council projects, with quality regulation by
Taumata Arowai.
- Empower Taumata
Arowai to distribute, through the 16 Regional Councils, low interest loans or
outright grants to those Councils which currently need urgent assistance, using
the vast sums of taxpayer/ratepayer money already set aside by the Ardern
government to purchase(confiscate) Council assets.
Advantages?
- No need for four
“mega-entities”, plus regional and sub-regional representative groups, or the huge
bureaucratic costs to set them up and keep them going - we already have them, they
are called Regional Councils.
- Communities should
retain ownership and control of their own assets
- Representatives on Regional
and Local Councils are elected and are accountable to ratepayers
and are not there because of their ethnicity
- Government can do
it’s benevolent politicising bribery, by making the current funds for Three
Waters available as low-interest loans or grants to those Councils in need. There
is no logical reason why government needs to “own” Three Waters.
- Nobody can “own” water,
which falls freely from the skies, can they?
It’s democratic, for God’s sake!
Henry Armstrong is retired, follows politics, and writes.
2 comments:
Thank you.
You are right Henry. This is a political agenda. If this nonsense doesn't stop NZ is heading down a very dangerous path. This must be the most incompetent government we have ever had
Post a Comment