PM Chris Hipkins says the term Three Waters is confusing, 'Water Infrastructure' is what they're talking about. Video / Mark Mitchell
The Local Government Minister is causing concern in the Opposition after detailing his belief that New Zealand’s founding document contains provisions that are different from a “purely academic democratic framework”.
Kieran McAnulty appeared on TVNZ’s Q+A politics show on Sunday morning following the Government’s announcement of its Affordable Water Reform,formerly known as Three Waters.
The Government was forced to revisit Three Waters after its use of co-governance between Māori and local government members attracted controversy, something acknowledged by McAnulty and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins.
Under the new model, the 10 regionally owned public water entities - up from four under the Three Waters model - would report to a local representative group that was jointly comprised of council representatives - every council in the country will have representation - as well as mana whenua.
The representation on these groups will be split 50-50 between mana whenua and councils - meaning they would be co-governed like the previous model of Three Waters.
McAnulty today told host Jack Tame he accepted that the groups didn’t reflect a “one-person, one vote” model but for good reason.
“We signed a treaty, the Treaty recognises the Māori have special rights in water in particular and that is something that’s been tested in the courts and found to be part of New Zealand law,” he said.
“Yes, the proprotion of mana whenua is higher than the proportion of the population.
“There are provisions that we have in this country that wouldn’t stand up to a purely academic democratic framework but that’s not how we work in New Zealand.”
The new model would deliver savings to households of between $2770-$5400 a year by 2054, less than under Three Waters.
However, McAnulty claimed the model would achieve “balance sheet separation” meaning they would be sufficiently separate from councils to have their own borrowing capacity, allowing them to debt-fund billions of dollars of water investment.
“However you look at it, if the objective of these reforms is to save ratepayers money and this helps us do that, then I think ultimately New Zealanders will be comfortable with that.”
National Party leader Christopher Luxon opposes the new water reforms. Photo / Mike Scott
Earlier this week, National leader Christopher Luxon confirmed he would repeal the legislation if he was successful in this year’s election.
Party justice spokesman Paul Goldsmith said McAnulty’s comments were “confusing and concerning”.
“One of the founding principles of the National Party is equal citizenship,” he said.
“We recognise Māori have rights and interests in water, but do not accept that 50-50 co-governance is required to give effect to that.
“The Prime Minister needs to clarify immediately why his Government has moved away from an equal standard of citizenship, and he should ask New Zealanders if they agree.”
Act leader David Seymour did praise McAnulty for his honesty but said it represented a “dangerous mixture of naivete and ignorance about the Treaty and democracy”.
“McAnulty is at least more honest than his predecessors, but he has now opened a pandora’s box that the Treaty required co-governance of every aspect of New Zealanders’ lives.
“By confusing Treaty Articles II and III, and calling democracy merely academic, he has declared war on New Zealand as a modern, multi-ethnic liberal democracy with a place for all.”
The increased council-level participation from the previous model had so far appeared to placate the concerns of some mayors across the country, with South Wairarapa Mayor Martin Connelly calling it “very positive” and striking a balance between cost savings and ensuring a local voice.
The South Island’s largest iwi Ngāi Tahu, which backed the original Three Waters model, said it fears the compromise in terms of increasing the number of entities could see poorer and more expensive water services.
