From the mayor's desk: Stratford mayor on Three Waters reforms - still not convinced

An advertising campaign around the Three Waters Reform was not well received by local councils when it was released. Photo / DIA

OPINION:

Last week the Prime Minister announced, in a move that would have pleased many people, the removal of a number of Covid-related mandates and restrictions. It was a major step towards our lives returning to normal, or the new normal at least.

But there is one mandate, totally unrelated to Covid, that remains steadfastly in place. It is the Government's Three Waters reforms mandate that requires all councils to hand over the water infrastructure to one of four, yet to be created, new entities to provide water services across New Zealand.

To date, this has primarily been a hotly debated issue among councils, but my thought is that the public debate will heat up considerably when the legislation is presented in Parliament in the near future.

To say the reforms are controversial would be the understatement of a political lifetime. Almost every council in New Zealand, including Stratford, has rejected the proposed model in some way, simply because every council sees flaws in what is being proposed. All through the consultation process to date, the bureaucrats and the vested interest groups leading the charge have failed to heed the warnings and concerns of local government and pressed on with the pre-conceived model they started out with. I think, to some extent, politicians have been blindsided by their own process and the depth of opposition has been seriously underestimated.

Somewhat ironically, Local Government New Zealand president Stuart Crosby says "the one thing the local governments sector is united on is that change is needed to deliver safe, environmentally sustainable and affordable water services to New Zealanders – both now and for future generations. That fact seems to have been lost in the public conversation". He is right.

The opposition is not directed at change itself, it is directed at the model that the Government is forcing upon us. Three key issues have arisen: ownership, protection against privatisation and the loss of local voice. To address these issues, minister Nanaia Mahuta established a working group to look at ways these arrangements could be strengthened. While the operating parameters for the working group were quite narrow, they have recently reported back with 47 recommendations that in my view, if adopted by the Government, will go some way towards taking the heat out of the opposition, but at the same time concede very little ground by the Government.

Notably, some of the most controversial aspects of the reforms were not up for negotiation. Removing the infrastructure assets' value from the council's balance sheet and placing it on the balance sheet of the new entity (referred to as balance sheet separation), the iwi partnership provisions and the creation of just four new jumbo entities to deliver the water services, were bottom line non-negotiables for the Government.

Included within the working group's 73-page document is a proposal to institute a public shareholding structure that protects community ownership, with shares held by councils on behalf of their communities. This would enhance and maintain the feeling of ownership, even though there would be very few owners' rights as we traditionally know them. In addition, it strengthens protections against privatisation, as councils would have to agree unanimously for an asset to be sold.

The working group also recommended strengthening and clarifying the role of the Regional Representatives Group (RRG), which is made up of council and iwi/hapū representatives. The function of the RRG has perhaps been the subject of the most misinformation of any issue within the reform proposals and needs more explanation.

There was also a recommendation to introduce a broader form of representation through regionally based groups. This would provide for a guiding voice to feed into the governance structure as a way to increase the ability of communities to influence future direction and decisions.

While the working group has made some good recommendations, we need to wait and see whether the Government accepts these and makes changes to the impending legislation.

In a previous article on the Three Waters, I wrote that I was unconvinced; today I write that I am still unconvinced.