That same characterisation could be applied to the lamentably renamed Affordable Water Reforms, aka Three Waters, whose very name has become a controversially partisan clarion call. Lamentable, laughable even, because the water reforms are now less affordable in their new 10-entity formation, a victim of decreased economies of scale.
If Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ policy bonfire two months ago was telling the electorate that he had his eye on the economic ball, then this week’s tweaks, and that’s all they are, shows that Three Waters is clearly the policy hill they’re prepared to die on.
In simply changing the water entities from four to 10, but still denying local government full ownership of their assets, while retaining the 50-50 co-governance of representative groups, and denying councils a promised $1.5 billion, Labour has defined Three Waters as an election issue with a bullseye on its back.
In another word salad this week, Hipkins denied that the 50-50 model is co-governance “as it’s traditionally understood”, a statement which denies the facts and history.
One of the country’s first co-governance models, the Waikato River Authority, is made up of representatives of each of the five river iwi: Tainui, Te Arawa, Tūwharetoa, Raukawa and Maniapoto, alongside five Crown-appointed members.
So why isn’t Hipkins prepared to stand by his convictions?
To take a leaf out of the book of another Chris – Finlayson – arguably the architect of the co-movement, maybe Hipkins could have used another term, co-management, instead of co-governance, which, as Finlayson asserts, is too close to the word government.
But semantics aside, if Three Waters reforms come to pass on July 1, 2026 – and the odds right now are even stevens if you consider the polls – then increased water bills are a certainty. Because no matter who carves the numbers up – and many have – the costs are astronomical.
In a report to its institutional investors this year, ratings agency S&P Global said “there’s no free lunch, and New Zealanders face much higher costs to fund this investment no matter who delivers it”.
What’s more, the report asserts that there has “been too little scrutiny of the affordability of the perceived NZ$120 billion to $180 billion investment in the Three Waters reform”.
S&P Global says the reform process is already creating a series of winners and losers among councils, with many of the bigger ones pressing ahead with “gold-plated” water treatment plants, gambling on the fact that the cost will be off their books.
S&P Global says the Palmerston North City Council’s $500 million wastewater treatment plan, quaintly named Nature Calls, is New Zealand’s best example of gold-plating. Because by starting the process before the new entity becomes reality it shifts the debt elsewhere. And if Three Waters doesn’t occur? S&P Global says it would breach the council’s debt cap, threatening the viability of the project.
But Palmerston North isn’t alone; other councils have come up with similar water projects trying to get ahead of the new reforms including Horowhenua, Wellington and Hutt City councils, which will be under way before the new regional entities can approve them.
But whatever Three Waters – sorry, Affordable Water Reform – achieves in terms of providing clean drinking water for larger councils, for smaller ones losing one of their most valuable assets has the potential to be life-threatening.
Water assets represent a council’s biggest expenditure, making up 40% of an average council’s capex between 2025 and 2029, with that extending to more than 50% for some councils. That’s according to the draft report of the Review into the Future for Local Government.
“Councils that are already small face the risk of further contraction or indeed questions over their long-term viability,” the draft report says, leading to the prospect of new amalgamation discussions for smaller councils.
Yes, councils around the country have brought this calamity on themselves by kicking the infrastructure can down the road, using the three-year electoral cycle as to why they hide from their responsibilities. But that doesn’t justify less democracy for local government, it simply creates the necessity for a more rigorous framework to ensure it’s achieved.
The need for change is indisputable; this week’s Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ report, Our Freshwater 2023, which tracks Aotearoa’s freshwater every three years, proved that when it revealed monitored lakes had worsened by 45% between 2011 and 2020.
Now voters have clearly differentiated choices on who to vote for in seeking that change. You can either choose a locally-owned model with no co-management provisions, or a centrally-based model with co-management.
But one thing is incontrovertible; however the water is managed, whoever owns it, it will be you and me paying for it in some form, either as a taxpayer, a ratepayer or as a consumer...The full article is published HERE
Janet Wilson is a freelance journalist who has also worked in communications. She is a regular contributor to Stuff.
In simply changing the water entities from four to 10, but still denying local government full ownership of their assets, while retaining the 50-50 co-governance of representative groups, and denying councils a promised $1.5 billion, Labour has defined Three Waters as an election issue with a bullseye on its back.
In another word salad this week, Hipkins denied that the 50-50 model is co-governance “as it’s traditionally understood”, a statement which denies the facts and history.
One of the country’s first co-governance models, the Waikato River Authority, is made up of representatives of each of the five river iwi: Tainui, Te Arawa, Tūwharetoa, Raukawa and Maniapoto, alongside five Crown-appointed members.
So why isn’t Hipkins prepared to stand by his convictions?
To take a leaf out of the book of another Chris – Finlayson – arguably the architect of the co-movement, maybe Hipkins could have used another term, co-management, instead of co-governance, which, as Finlayson asserts, is too close to the word government.
But semantics aside, if Three Waters reforms come to pass on July 1, 2026 – and the odds right now are even stevens if you consider the polls – then increased water bills are a certainty. Because no matter who carves the numbers up – and many have – the costs are astronomical.
In a report to its institutional investors this year, ratings agency S&P Global said “there’s no free lunch, and New Zealanders face much higher costs to fund this investment no matter who delivers it”.
What’s more, the report asserts that there has “been too little scrutiny of the affordability of the perceived NZ$120 billion to $180 billion investment in the Three Waters reform”.
S&P Global says the reform process is already creating a series of winners and losers among councils, with many of the bigger ones pressing ahead with “gold-plated” water treatment plants, gambling on the fact that the cost will be off their books.
S&P Global says the Palmerston North City Council’s $500 million wastewater treatment plan, quaintly named Nature Calls, is New Zealand’s best example of gold-plating. Because by starting the process before the new entity becomes reality it shifts the debt elsewhere. And if Three Waters doesn’t occur? S&P Global says it would breach the council’s debt cap, threatening the viability of the project.
But Palmerston North isn’t alone; other councils have come up with similar water projects trying to get ahead of the new reforms including Horowhenua, Wellington and Hutt City councils, which will be under way before the new regional entities can approve them.
But whatever Three Waters – sorry, Affordable Water Reform – achieves in terms of providing clean drinking water for larger councils, for smaller ones losing one of their most valuable assets has the potential to be life-threatening.
Water assets represent a council’s biggest expenditure, making up 40% of an average council’s capex between 2025 and 2029, with that extending to more than 50% for some councils. That’s according to the draft report of the Review into the Future for Local Government.
“Councils that are already small face the risk of further contraction or indeed questions over their long-term viability,” the draft report says, leading to the prospect of new amalgamation discussions for smaller councils.
Yes, councils around the country have brought this calamity on themselves by kicking the infrastructure can down the road, using the three-year electoral cycle as to why they hide from their responsibilities. But that doesn’t justify less democracy for local government, it simply creates the necessity for a more rigorous framework to ensure it’s achieved.
The need for change is indisputable; this week’s Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ report, Our Freshwater 2023, which tracks Aotearoa’s freshwater every three years, proved that when it revealed monitored lakes had worsened by 45% between 2011 and 2020.
Now voters have clearly differentiated choices on who to vote for in seeking that change. You can either choose a locally-owned model with no co-management provisions, or a centrally-based model with co-management.
But one thing is incontrovertible; however the water is managed, whoever owns it, it will be you and me paying for it in some form, either as a taxpayer, a ratepayer or as a consumer...The full article is published HERE
Janet Wilson is a freelance journalist who has also worked in communications. She is a regular contributor to Stuff.
3 comments:
Everyone is talking about the water, the assets and co-governance but no-one is talking about the debt financing.
Why is no-one talking about that? Has a financing model been agreed? If so what is it? Is it an interest only model for 35 years? A road to ruin that one.
Why do the international credit agencies have so much interest in our little NZ water plans?
If Iwi have the final say through Te Mana O Te Wai statements is it possible for them to manipulate the outcomes for bad debt and asset sales that would benefit themselves?
Who would buy the assets cheaply and refinance on what terms?
Then there is John Tamihere saying on Stuff:
"The right to the asset called water is still a customary entitlement to all Māori," he said.
"Māori rightly say, how do we get co-governance when we own 100 percent of it?"
"The real issue is how do the pākehās get into the room?" he asked.
How do we fare if Maori own the water to start with? We will all (every NZ citizen of all stripes) be paying royalties to get into the room.
Co-governance can go f itself.
Yes, if we go with the Govt's plans we all be paying for it but, some will be subsidising someone else who have been less prudent with their infrastructure over the years, and all will be paying for those extra snouts in the trough at the governance table, along with whatever else comes to pass, like royalties, through those mana o te wai statements. You'd have to be either a Maori, or a masochist, to think this was a good idea.
If I remember correctly, wasn't New Zealand's water rated the second best in the world a couple of years ago. Things have obviously deteriorated very badly lately, but I suggest not in our water quality.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.