The intention to confiscate three waters infrastructure and assets from councils and the asset owners, essentially the ratepayers, is nothing more than theft, in my view.
The Government has no mandate to do this.
Its unilateral decision to remove three waters management, operations, and assets from councils makes a mockery of its own requirement for councils to prepare and consult on long-term and annual plans; these are now meaningless.
Perhaps it's time for councils to now consider and reflect on the lack of respect and disregard they have been shown by government when responding to and undertaking activities mandated by government.
For almost two centuries there has been extensive debate, Treaty of Waitangi claims, and multibillion-dollar settlement costs related to historical land and asset confiscations by governments. Surely the current government should have learnt from this, but it seems not.
The Government's proposal to confiscate three waters community infrastructure and assets is a very sad repeat of NZ history.
No matter how it is disguised, it amounts to theft of ratepayer's property. The Government should be ashamed of itself for perpetuating past wrongs.
We have come to expect this sort of behaviour in communist countries, but New Zealand is supposed to be a democratic country, free from this unacceptable type of behaviour.
Nanaia Mahuta says that councils will retain ownership of water services and local communities will retain influence over how the assets are run through the councils.
This is a "pigs might fly" statement. None of NZ's small communities will get a look-in when it comes to trying to influence the entities based in some remote location.
It's a bit rich to suggest confiscated assets will continue to be owned by the communities they have been taken from.
Sickness from drinking water is cited as justification for reform.
Invariably, these cases are linked to small, untreated private supplies, including government-owned schools, outside councils' control so the situation probably won't change under the four-entity proposal, unless of course Mahuta plans to also confiscate these private supplies. The majority of these are based on roof water collection or shallow bores owned by the property owner; so does this mean all the assets associated with these supplies, e.g. roof water storage tanks, bores and reticulation, will also be confiscated so that the entities can control their operation and management?
Government ministers have become proficient in grossly exaggerating the real status of community water supplies in order to justify their agenda. I believe the claims aren't always true, as can often be seen in the body language at media briefings.
Infrastructure is not crumbling as claimed, nor is there a crisis.
There has always been planned maintenance and upgrading of infrastructural assets, within the realms of what local communities could afford, as shown in council annual and long-term plans.
Asset management plans using asset lifecycles, operational history, condition ratings, etc ensure money isn't spent unwisely or before it is justified. If the Government had actually listened and attempted to address the funding concerns councils have been expressing for years, greater infrastructure investment would have been possible.
Mahuta says the Government will continue to work with councils in establishing the entities, and communities will be consulted over the proposals.
This is hardly credible given its total disregard for council input so far, and its clear intention to proceed with implementation of its proposals irrespective of what anyone else thinks.
It's time for some honesty by the Government over its transfer-of-assets agenda with its Three Waters proposal.
• Chris Davis is a managing director of a consulting firm with more than 50 years' experience in managing three water activities in NZ.
