Councils in affected districts were allowed to grant retrospective approval with any necessary amendments.
Councillors, sitting at a full council meeting, also confirmed the original submission was final.
The submission noted council’s disappointment “at the timing of the release of the two water services bills and the short submissions period.
“It coincides with the Christmas holiday break and the submissions periods for the two resource management bills and the Future for Local Government Review report.”
Councillor Andy Cranston asked if there was support from other councils on the “issues that need to be addressed”.
Council special projects manager Yvette Kinsella said there was wide divergence in submissions.
The bills were not finalised, so it
was difficult to get the full picture from councils and the community, she said.
Cr Larry Foster expressed passionate opposition to water services legislation.
“What a mess, an absolute mess,” he said. “Why are they even doing this?
“We are going to be so disadvantaged from any of these outcomes. Hopefully someone will come to their senses before they progress this any further and realise this is not fit for purpose for most councils in New Zealand.
“I’m totally opposed to anything to do with Three Waters.”
The submission says Gisborne District Council recognises the need for change and lists “bottom lines” council wants to see reflected in all legislation, which are —
• That water services in Te Tairāwhiti are affordable for our communities.
• There is genuine co-governance around water services delivery.
• The structural layers responsible for operational delivery remain accountable in accordance with the priorities and strategic expectations set at the co-governance level.
• There are mechanisms for local voice to ensure Te Tairāwhiti’s community needs for water services (as described by communities) are well understood at a granular level.
• There is clear, seamless, and well-communicated alignment between the regulatory functions and powers of the different agencies involved in water services to avoid conflict and duplication of effort between agencies, and to ensure the regulatory system is efficient and navigable.
The submission says proposed legislation includes affordability in the purpose of the Water Services Entities Act (the Act) but the rest of the Act and the two Bills do not explicitly state that affordability for households, businesses and others is an intended outcome of the legislation.
Financial sustainability is among legislative objectives.
“We want to highlight that financial sustainability does not equate to affordability for communities,” says the submission.
“Financial sustainability is about the ability of the system to sustain itself financially.
“While this is important, and supported by council, it is as (if not more) important that our communities can afford to pay for water services.”
The proposed reforms assume that the combined costs of water bills and rates should not change.
The submission also states that Gisborne as a unitary authority, currently achieves a degree of efficiency through delivering the four waters (including flood control).
Water services reform will result in a “decrease in the economies of scope for council delivering its residual activities”.
The council also notes that there is a lack of clarity about the precise scope of the residual water services activities that councils will be delivering beyond July 1, 2024.
There needs to be a clear statement about the functions that remain with councils, to assist with necessary financial forecasting.
