Structural reform of water services is pointless unless we manage land better & prioritise action to protect clean drinking water sources.
Access to clean, affordable water is a basic human right and a public good.
🧵
— Green Party NZ (@NZGreens) April 13, 2023
Today the Government adopted a long held Green Party position to increase the number of water entities to ensure a closer connection with communities they serve. However, despite the rebrand, significant concerns remain.
“Access to clean, affordable water is a basic human right and a public good. While we agree that increasing the number of water entities will go some way to upholding this right, not enough has changed in the rebrand to reassure us that public ownership will be guaranteed and nature protected,” says the Green Party’s spokesperson for water services, Eugenie Sage.
“Right from the start, the Green Party was clear that only four entities would be too unwieldy and disconnected from the community. We are pleased that the Government has finally taken this on board.
“But let’s be clear: structural reform is pointless unless we manage land better and prioritise action to protect clean drinking water sources. Today’s rebrand doesn’t go anywhere near as far enough to protect nature.
“The key infrastructure that needs investment is that which nature provides: the lakes, the rivers, the aquifers, which are the sources of our drinking water. The Our Freshwater 2023 report released yesterday should have made it patently clear to the Government the need to safeguard and clean-up drinking water sources as part of its three waters reforms.
“Long term investment is vital for improving infrastructure to guarantee affordable access to safe, clean water, and effective wastewater services, including in the face of the worsening effects of climate change. It is disappointing that the Government is pressing on with a corporatised approach to funding and investment.
“Rather than continuing to allow for balance sheet separation, options such as a Crown guarantee for borrowing should have been investigated further to allow councils to be more closely accountable to their communities, while allowing them to invest in improving services.
“The failure to separate stormwater management is another missed opportunity. Managing stormwater needs to stay as the responsibility of local councils because of the connection between land use and stormwater volumes and quality.
“The Green Party also remains concerned that the Government continues to leave the door open to future privatisation of water services. Stronger safeguards to guarantee public ownership now and for future generations is essential.
“The Green Party will continue to push for an approach to water that better connects the entities with communities while enabling them to properly invest in clean, safe, climate-resilient water services for present and future generations,” says Eugenie Sage.
Funnily enough there is a lot of this post I agree with. A major issue for me is that the government's model really isn't democratic so far as I can see.
And, I think alternative models should be considered because they may be better. This doesn't mean I agree with all of the post. But, just that the government really needs to be less close minded about possible better models.
We are looking at a long term strategy involving significant cost and the cost of getting it wrong could be catastrophic.
The whole point of balance sheet separation – which enables lower borrowing cost – is that it runs as a business. Thus is not subject to political interference – by any one council. Apparently it requires the entity has 3 councils within its zone to ensure this.
The alternative of local democracy with government guarantee of the repayment of borrowed money is the impact on the governments credit rating and thus it's own cost of borrowing.
Councils have rules over their level of borrowing and some would not have the ratepayer base to meet required standards.
But, in the end, it is all just smoke and mirrors, isn't it?
The costs are still there regardless. The key features of what are needed is:
1. A long term, sustainable strategy for management of water assets and resources.
2. The ability to leverage bulk buying to reduce input costs such as pipes, fittings etc, and more competitive bidding for contract work etc.
We need the best model for achieving this, and I am far from convinced that the government's model is that.
The costs of borrowing are still there regardless of the structure. The only difference is the balance sheet it sits on. Most lenders with half a brain could see through all this.
Balance sheet separation is important to lenders – because it reduces political interference, which they see as a risk.
A lower cost of borrowing is important for the viability of any long term investment plan.
Again, I am not sure borrowers would be impressed by that. Because, governments are essentially God. They can undo any structure any time they want, and interfere to their hearts content.
Probably the only way to deal with this issue would be for all parliament to agree and require a super-majority for changes. Good luck with that.
Yeah National and some provincial councils controlled by farming interests are an obstacle to water standards in New Zealand. And in the long term that will impact on our international reputation. And not just the cost of borrowing but our brand in offshore markets.
Really the government cocked this up from the start.
What they should have done is set up a bipartisan working group including opposition parties, council representatives etc to develop a solution by broad consensus. Then a super majority may have been a possibility.
What then are the chances that this will be the policy of National in government?
I don't really know.
I don't think the overall structure in terms of function would change much. I think there has been too much spent so far to go back to square one.
So, I expect there will be more change with the way the governance side works.
Maybe not, but credit rating agencies said they were, so the government believed them. Your point is true of all government borrowing – the government could change any law, repudiate the debt or print money to pay it at any time. Any lender who is worried about that won't lend to any government for any purpose.
That said, might have been easier just to set strict legal requirements and then at some point, sack a council and replace with commissioners who increase rates by 15-20% to sort out the mess to make an example pour encourager les autres.
So, come up with a better one, and better than the Natz plan, which seems to be 'asking the councils to do a better job.'
What would be the point in that? Firstly, even if I did, who would take notice of it? And, in doing that, I would be repeating the same mistake of the government. That is, trying to impose a solution on unwilling parties.
I would do what I said in my previous post. That is, set up a bipartisan working group including government and opposition parties, along with council representatives, and aim to come up with something with broad agreement that could be enshrined with a super majority.
Many Councils, but especially the smaller ones, have neither the capability nor capacity to do ‘the job’. Even Watercare in Auckland will or arguably already does fall short, as it simply keeps increasing its prices time and time again.
https://www.watercare.co.nz/About-us/News-media/Auckland-water-and-wastewater-prices-to-increase-b [by 9.5% this time]
Why do dinosaurs stick to BAU and status quo? Are they afraid they’ll be going extinct?
In all this resert/rebranding talk, I’m not seeing much if any discussion of Te Mana o Te Wai (TMOTW) statements that are still in the proposed model.
TMOTW allow Iwi to issue a statement like “in region X you will employ only our tribe” or “you will not draw from this water source” or whatever else they dream up, which may or may not conflict with statements from another Iwi. Also the select committee came back and added two more waters to the bill – geothermal and coastal, which have nothing to do with infrastructure so why were these added?
This hits on the key issue the Government doesn’t understand – the difference between Governance, Management and Operations, how 3 waters breaks this, and how this difference is crucial to understanding how this will fall apart.
Governance sets direction, Management ‘manages’ implementation of this through Operations. This separation of layers exists to stop the Governance structure from interfering in the day to day operations – this always ends badly because governance has a totally different focus and doesn’t live and breath operations so has no understanding of the impact of their decisions on the day to day delivery of services.
3/5 waters breaks this in 3 interrelated ways. Firstly the 50/50 panel chooses the group to select the governance layer – extra bureaucracy to justify adding co-governance. Secondly the law mandates that anyone in the governance layer must understand and demonstrate a history of using Matauranga Maori. So Maori get undue influence across this structure without even needing to understand water management. And what does this have to do with infrastructure – why are we adding spirituality into water management with MM? Thirdly MOTW statements are made by Iwi (totally outside the whole structure) and this crosses all layers and impacts directly on the Operations layer.
So 3 waters breaks apart all normal governance and service delivery, which is needed for something as complex as water management in a climate-changing world. How can you plan for this type of change when an Iwi can come along and upend it with a TMOTW statement? This will inevitably happen – just look at Urewera or the Dome Valley examples. In both cases a minority of Iwi governance members have hijacked their own interests just to do a deal to benefit themselves at the expense of their own people. This absolutely will happen with 3 waters – Maori are just as susceptible to politics, power and greed as everyone else.
The Te Mana o Te Wai statements also apply as veto and control power over physical water infrastructure, which makes no sense. Maori absolutely have water rights under the treaty, but why should they have rights over the infrastructure we as taxpayers paid for?
[please provide evidence for this assertion: “TMOTW allow Iwi to issue a statement like “in region X you will employ only our tribe” or “you will not draw from this water source” or whatever else they dream up, which may or may not conflict with statements from another Iwi”.
Evidence here means 1) an explanation from you 2) backed up with quotes and links. It doesn’t mean links alone and expecting people to reads screeds to try and parse what you mean. You’re in premod until you do this – weka]
You have nuked the facts, again.
https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/freshwater-implementation-guidance/te-mana-o-te-wai-implementation/
The six principles of Te Mana o te Wai in the NPS-FM 2020 inform its implementation (see text box below).
The six principles
Mana whakahaere: the power, authority, and obligations of tangata whenua to make decisions that maintain, protect, and sustain the health and well-being of, and their relationship with, freshwater
Kaitiakitanga: the obligation of tangata whenua to preserve, restore, enhance, and sustainably use freshwater for the benefit of present and future generations
Manaakitanga: the process by which tangata whenua show respect, generosity, and care for freshwater and for others
Governance: the responsibility of those with authority for making decisions about freshwater to do so in a way that prioritises the health and well-being of freshwater now and into the future
Stewardship: the obligation of all New Zealanders to manage freshwater in a way that ensures it sustains present and future generations
Care and respect: the responsibility of all New Zealanders to care for freshwater in providing for the health of the nation
mod note above.
Ok then. It's all through the enabling legislation, starting at Part 1 section 3 2 d)::
https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0077/latest/LMS534591.html?search=sw_096be8ed81cf7714_te+mana_25_se&p=1&sr=2
" requiring them to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Mana o TeWai "
the section 4):
"must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that Te Mana o te Wai applies to those duties, functions, or powers."
of which "those duties, functions, or powers" are not circumscribed in any way.
and section 5 b and g, with interpretation in section 6, which pertains to this link: https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/national-policy-statements/national-policy-statement-freshwater-management/
The detail is in part 1.3. which lays down the principles of Te Mana o Te Wai.
Since you don't want me to expatiate about this, I'll just note that there is absolutely nothing in there that isn't open to interpretation big enough to drive a truck through. The water services entities in the establishing legislation have to give effect to these statements, and any Iwi in a service area can make them. There is no governance or management mechanism to deal with conflicts, in fact the legislation requires that they must be 'given effect to'.
In terms of operationalising this i.e. making it something practical not just a principle or statement, we need to read the governments own guidance on this from:
https://www.waterservicesreform.govt.nz/how-do-these-changes-affect-me/iwi/"
"Statutory recognition of Te Mana o Te Wai:
At the heart of the water services delivery system is Te Mana o te Wai, a concept derived from te ao Māori. Te Mana o te Wai refers to the vital importance of water. It prioritises the health of our water to ensure the health of people and the environment. Advancing Te Mana o te Wai is the responsibility of all New Zealander’s
Te Mana o Te Wai will be recognised and provided for in service-delivery arrangements for the water services delivery system. It is expected that Te Mana o te Wai creates structural changes to the better management of water services. Therefore, each water services entity will be required to give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai both in legislation and as articulated by mana whenua over their respective waterbodies."
So again, the guidance imposes no limit on what these can contain, and is directly targeted at service delivery (i.e anything below governance level – pipes, infrastructure, investment, actions of people etc).
I stand by my points. This is the opposite of good governance, management or delivery.
Most posts aren't showing content on mobile at the mo 😒
And I need to find my glasse6to read them on desktop
Landscape mode and zoom in.
🥸🥸
“The key infrastructure that needs investment is that which nature provides: the lakes, the rivers, the aquifers, which are the sources of our drinking water. The Our Freshwater 2023 report released yesterday should have made it patently clear to the Government the need to safeguard and clean-up drinking water sources as part of its three waters reforms."
And irrespective of structure if the monitoring and enforcement is not implemented then we will continue to degrade our water and environment.
We ignored the standards under the existing regime (for largely economic reasons) and there is nothing that indicates we wont continue to so into the future.
Hoo Lordie a hot mess from the Greens
Sage and the Greens voted for the previous legislation through all stages, up to the point where they cooked a deal with Mahuta and got found out.
Sage is a total moron for equating land use with water quality: One is RMA reform. One is water industry reform. Different legislation in the same year.
Sage is also a moron for trying to separate stormwater from fresh and wastewater. There's one water, all requiring treatment to restore to nature.
No defence of Treaty partnership.
No mention of water quality regulation.
No acceptance that the private sector has a legitimate and permanent place in water management.
Sage needs to accelerate her retirement plans; she's a political hypocrite and a fool.