Three Waters- a balanced perspective

I would like to offer some observations, and reflections on the past 2 months, following a wide array of commentary regarding the Three Waters reform proposal. This past 2-month period was specifically requested by the local government sector, to allow for LGNZ (Local Government NZ) to update and fully inform its sector on the details contained within the proposals, and to seek feedback from its members.

A quick reminder- The combined Local- Central Government Steering Group was established as a partnership, to be a critical voice to central government on its reform proposals and has worked very collaboratively and constructively since formation in June last year. I would also point out there has been constant communication with the LG sector since this time, with weekly email updates, online discussions, and regular nationwide workshops. I hear from some within the sector say that there is not enough information, while others say they are overloaded with information. So, the 2-month period was specifically set aside to allow elected councils to take the time to fully understand the proposals.

I would like to acknowledge all those councils that used this opportunity as intended and provided very constructive feedback on the proposals. Much of the feedback was regarding the governance and ownership structure, and associated concerns such as local voice and influence, and interface with planning between councils and the proposed entities. This feedback is being collated currently, and the minister has expressed a desire to look at how these concerns can be accommodated into the proposed reforms.

Unfortunately, this 2-month period soon became political, characterised by a large amount of misinformation, spread in the public domain by opposition parties, and supported by some in local government sectors, in an orchestrated effort to undermine the reform proposals. Much of this campaign, especially by opposition parties, focussed on racially divisive or emotive taglines such as “Assets are being stolen” were at best economical with the truth. There were no suggested alternative proposals put forward to a problem that is widely acknowledged, just continual negative commentary.

?Let us look at some historical facts.

·???????It was in the 1990’s under the Bolger Government, the then National Minister of Local Government Maurice Williamson, raised his concerns with LGNZ that there was a significant problem looming of underinvestment in Water Infrastructure in NZ, there were significant issues of noncompliance, and that some form of reform into larger entities was needed to address some of the severe challenges that were being faced.

·???????Nothing came of this, and then in 2003 the Clark Labour Government introduced a subsidy scheme for small community Water and Wastewater Schemes, as they also saw a significant affordability issue, resulting in many noncompliant plants in the country. When the Key National government came to power in 2008, this scheme was scrapped, and nothing was put in its place.

·???????What did occur in 2011 was a significant earthquake in Christchurch, and one of the real lessons that was not learnt from this was the significant cost to replace damaged underground infrastructure. Affected councils’ insurance cover for replacing underground pipes was hugely underestimated, and the taxpayer had to step in to help meet the substantial costs.

·???????Havelock North water contamination then occurred in 2016 and the irony now is that it was the National Govt who started this reform process with the Havelock North Inquiry. And today the National opposition is campaigning to “Dump the Reforms” which I find quite bizarre. One of the strongest conclusions from this inquiry was the “Systemic failure from all forms of government- local, regional and central”

·???????2017 Labour comes into office, and a new Local Govt Minister Nanaia Mahuta, takes charge, and sets about looking at how the water service delivery in NZ can be improved.

If the above timeline proves nothing else, it is that removing political influence from delivery of long term, infrastructure investment should be regarded as a positive move.

My own experience in local government tells me that if you take any council, I have no doubt you will find a similar story of short-term political decisions putting off tackling this long-term infrastructure challenge.

Water Service entities, governed by competent Boards and management- with a sole focus of long-term strategic investment and an efficient operating environment delivering high quality service, is the ultimate goal here. The establishment of strong quality and environment regulator, as well as an economic regulator, will hold these entities to account and make sure they are performing as they say they will.

As a country, the one advantage of being so far behind international best practise is that we have the benefit of learning from their reform experiences. When to look to the experiences from overseas examples of similar change and reform, such as Victoria, Tasmania, and UK, the process was very similar.

When it came to decision time there was a large amount of blood letting and angst but talk to the mayors and leaders a decade later and they speak with pride about how successful it has been and how much better off their communities are!

While the case for change may have been slightly lost during the past 2 months of negative behaviours, it is important to acknowledge there is still significant recognition from the LG and other sectors that the need for reform is stronger than ever.

Brian Hanna, Independent Chair, Three Waters Reform Steering Group