web analytics

We Have a Human Right to Water, and to Democracy

Written By: - Date published: 7:01 am, July 1st, 2025 - 25 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, Environment, infrastructure, local government, supercity, uncategorized, water - Tags:

National is rolling out comprehensive water corporatisation, across New Zealand. 

For those who don’t live in Auckland, Wellington, or other centres with commercialised water services already, this is coming to you fast.

“Water Done Well” is the policy of this government to require all communities to decide on forming commercial water delivery entities, to run water like a business and remove it from direct democratic oversight.

It is strongly encouraging local authorities to merge across large regions and deliver water in commercial conglomerations. This is not the strong version of regionalisation that Labour and the Greens proposed. But it is still a large set of mergers that will in turn encourage local governments itself to merge.

Each local authority will be putting out its own proposal for public “consultation”, usually only using the “do nothing much different” as your only alternative option. It’s a sham frankly and it’s happening now.

Councils will retain ownership, but governed by commercial boards. They have to be self-funded through water charges to ensure there is long-term investment in infrastructure. Everyone appears to agree that there is massive historical under-investment in water network and treatment infrastructure because rates have been kept for the most part too low for the water infrastructure that is needed.

A very big part of these proposals is that there will be water charges separate from rates, and that those charges should reflect the true cost of delivering water services. Apparently this separate bill you get will ensure affordability and efficiency.

Each Council will be required to develop and submit a Water Service Plan for Ministerial approval. This is another area where the government is essentially turning all local governments into minor government departments rather than independent Crown entities with their own democratic order.

It’s also hoped that through adopting corporatised models nationwide, water charges should reflect the true cost of delivering services, ensuring affordability and efficiency. For this, we need to see the Commerce Commission actually take a water corporation to court and then actually win a case about water pricing. No luck anywhere so far.

Through these changes, they hope to achieve overall goals of improving water quality through addressing historical underinvestment, financial viability and sustainability of the services, and efficient service delivery through the most appropriate delivery model.

They will be coming to you fast before the local government elections, so that the new corporatised model can be in place as soon as the new local government term starts.

Most of the proposals will merge one local government network with another, to gain efficiencies. Unsurprisingly, the role of regional government as a stormwater regulator will continue to be eroded: the water entities will answer more to the Commerce Commission for price and Taumata Arawai as the water quality regulator, rather than to local citizens or to regional government.

So the first thing to notice is how narrow the scope of the reforms are. The entire dairy industry is untouched. All the dams of the great power generators are untouched. Between them they account for more water use and far more wastewater than our entire human population, and for more harm to our entire water system. Untouched.

Sometimes in the proposals stormwater is included with fresh water and wastewater – which is the optimum to ensure the entire hydrological cycle is protected. To see what it’s like for a society when you carve stormwater off, Rotorua’s tourism industry honestly will never recover because in part its lakes were left to go to algae-saturated shit.

The second thing to notice is that these reforms don’t actually mention citizens. Citizens whose rates actually paid for this existing and future infrastructure over many many decades. There’s a barely-suppressed logic in this set of reforms that everyone is going to have to be metered for water use because the new commercial water entities are going to have to bill like crazy to get commercially viable. Yes, everyone that is supplied with a water service whether in a rural village or large city will have to have a water meter. 

Watercare is the most mature and largest of the water entities we have. It took years for it to come up with policies that responded to people who were too poor to pay for the water they used, and were as a result facing restrictions at the street of their actual water supply. It also took them years to generate a realistic and meaningful engagement with mana whenua. Yet even this largest and most mature of water corporations has still planned water infrastructure so badly that it continues to need to truck human waste out of communities, over multiple years, to treatment plants, because developers were allowed to go ahead before the systems were ready to cope with it.

A few like Christchurch Council want to keep water services in house.

There are other local governments facing massive government pressure to accelerate development, before the water systems are in the ground to cope.

The idea of a human right to water is being dissolved in favour of a human customer of water and wastewater services.

To still have a “right” to water, you would need to have your own stream with no cattle at all upstream, or a really good bore with a filter, and be able to store your own raw water: that human survival right to water is hence confined to the few thousands who have an isolated lifestyle block far from dairy country. That’s a very, very small few who can retain that right to water, rather than be a permanent customer.

So, where is our human right to water? 

25 comments on “We Have a Human Right to Water, and to Democracy ”

  1. tc 1
    1 July 2025 at 9:28 am

    IMO their election campaigns was all about killing off 3 waters so they could do this.

    Like ferries we get more years of nothing happening when action was underway to sort it nationally.

    Slow off the mark also as I expected this late 2024 so they can cement it in.

    Reply
  2. Kay 2
    1 July 2025 at 9:39 am

    A lot of people voted for this, and a lot didn't vote at all. Rather, they fell for the anti- 3 waters propaganda (racism) or chose not to do what they could to prevent a RW government. So self-inflicted for the most.

    Usual caveat of sympathy for those who tried to avoid this happening.

    Reply
    • Graeme 2.1
      1 July 2025 at 10:29 am

      This is pretty cool, and a way monopoly infrastructure could be owned, administered and financed.

      Our community electricity generation company / trust in Central Otago has just entered an equity JV with a consortium of Iwi trusts.

      https://www.odt.co.nz/business/tōtara-energy-secures-equity-partnership

      This will get the 'Stop 3 Waters' crowd going, but Central Lakes Trust is hardly a bed of progressive activism, although their structure, aims and actions are pretty similar to an Iwi trust, which the CLT directors identified.

      Hope the CLT directors and management have good filters on their inboxes.

      Reply
    • Phillip ure 2.2
      2 July 2025 at 7:22 pm

      @kay….

      Do you think labour bear any responsibility for the pigs-rear-end job they did in explaining w.t.f. 3 waters was ..?…and the imperatives/logic involved ..?

      Think I try to pay attention…but I wouldn't have anything but the vaguest idea what 3 waters was involved ..

      And are those people that did that pigs-rear-end job still influential in the labour party…?

      I fear the answer to that is 'yes'…

      Reply
  3. Graeme 3
    1 July 2025 at 9:43 am

    This is going to be fun. The veneer of neo-liberal purity of National's 85 percentile supported might turn out to be pretty thin when a water meter appears at their gate, closely followed by a water bill that starts increasing by several times inflation or their rates bill. Especially in National's heartland rural towns. They tend to get rather exercised about water meters, and regard water as a right, along with having well watered frontages as a civic duty.

    There'll be a close parallel with with how Dunedin City has managed their Aurora lines company, pulling out more profit than they should have to finance vanity projects and reduce rates. Most TAs seem to be adopting similar models, with similar potential for abuse. Water and Companies Act really don't go together, unless it's a co-op structure.

    Hope the fools get cracking with this and have it front and centre of their heartland voter's minds about October next year, although unfortunately the real impact probably won't be until 29 or 32 elections.

    Reply
  4. Res Publica 4
    1 July 2025 at 10:17 am

    Really thoughtful analysis.

    I agree with a lot of the critique here, especially the concerns about democratic oversight, the narrow scope of reform (ignoring big polluters like dairy and hydro), and the risk of water users being treated purely as customers.

    But from inside local government, I think we also need to be honest about the state of the system. The status quo is not viable. Most councils simply can’t meet infrastructure needs and new water standards under current financial constraints.

    Especially when rates increases are politically toxic. Reform is coming, one way or another.

    Where I think we should focus is on the model most councils are actually adopting: the Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO). Yes, it's technically a commercial entity — but it’s not privatisation, and if done right, it can preserve a high level of council control and public accountability. The key is governance: the right board, strong mana whenua involvement, transparency, and picking the right CEO.

    We should be worried about rushed timelines and poor consultation, absolutely. But we also shouldn’t pretend we can hold onto a model that’s already financially broken. What we need is:

    • A robust governance framework that protects public ownership and affordability
    • Stormwater fully integrated with other services
    • Real community and iwi participation at the board level
    • Strong affordability protections and transparent pricing

    Reform isn’t the enemy. But it has to be values-driven, not just commercially efficient. That’s where our energy needs to go — not in defending a system that’s already failing, but in shaping the one that comes next.

    Reply
  5. thinker 5
    1 July 2025 at 4:24 pm

    If you think a public referendum with 75% majority will save us from privatisation, watch out for a corporate model that keeps the water business in public hands but licenses everything to a multinational.

    Once the local authorities corporatise their water, with the smaller regions amalgamating to regionally-sized entities, a multinational could run the whole country's water with maybe 10 contracts, and the water companies still remain in public hands. The multinational comes in with a no-brainer contract that the regional companies can't compete with, and when some time has passed and the multinational has all the corporate knowledge, the multinational can reap what it sowed.

    "Water is the new oil" is a phrase you might have heard, if you eavesdropped around some foreign boardrooms.

    All IMHO, you understand 😉

    Reply
  6. Phillip ure 6
    1 July 2025 at 5:26 pm

    Heh….!

    Reply
  7. KJT 7
    1 July 2025 at 8:45 pm

    We always knew that the right wing opposition to Three Waters, came from their underhanded desire to privatise.

    All their spurious reasons for opposing it are/were just bullshit.

    Reply
  8. bwaghorn 8
    2 July 2025 at 5:54 am

    still have a “right” to water, you would need to have your own stream with no cattle at all upstream,

    Or a rain capture water tank like most us hicks

    Reply
    • Tiger Mountain 8.1
      2 July 2025 at 11:27 am

      I’m “sorted” in the Far North with two 25 year old 5000 gall. concrete rain water tanks, modern filter system and solar with battery as are many others.

      But, many also are not so lucky as per Kaeo and Kaitaia with very marginal town systems. Water infrastructure sucks in Tai Tokerau with the slight exception of Whangārei. No amount of meters and corporate speak is going to fix that in a hurry.

      Reply
    • Binders full of women 8.2
      3 July 2025 at 5:17 pm

      Same here, rainwater tank & septic tank (both older style=no bells or whistles just work well). Thankfully not reliant on a town system. Is it still illegal to have a rainwater tank in Akl metro area?

      Reply
  9. Ad 9
    2 July 2025 at 9:30 am

    Fascinating to see Minister Jones having to step in to support the oyster farmers of Mahurangi, and call out Watercare.

    He really doesn't have many state levers to use to rapidly improve wastewater performance from Watercare, after the oyster farmers filmed massive discharges straight into the harbour which has prevented them from harvesting.

    When central government starts enforcing a specific corporate model on people rather than strengthening local councils to do the job, inevitably they get to wear the responsibility for it.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/565686/we-re-cleaning-up-their-mess-oyster-farmers-want-watercare-to-deal-with-sewage-overflow

    … and Jones is only getting around to it after the locals have been fighting Watercare for 7 years.

    If this issue weren't hived off into a corporation, it would be a massive local election issue and politicians would rise and fall on it, as they should and as democracy should operate.

    Reply
  10. lprent 10
    2 July 2025 at 10:21 am

    Each Council will be required to develop and submit a Water Service Plan for Ministerial approval. This is another area where the government is essentially turning all local governments into minor government departments rather than independent Crown entities with their own democratic order.

    That is my biggest single problem with it.

    The Minister and minister simply don't have the skills or ability to do the forward looking auditing of three water plans – fresh water / contaminated water / storm water to be able to price for them on a sustained basis.

    Similarly the commerce commission almost certainly doesn't have the skills or viewpoint to work backwards from a 30-40 year development plan to what the pricing should be today.

    It requires a lot of engineering project accounting background, including a climate change risk assessment these days that you'd need a earth sciences and insurance risk assessment skillset. The minister and their ministry whoever it is at the time won't have a hope of maintaining a consistent skillset and institutional knowledge to achieve that.

    What they should do is to create a specific auditor general style office to audit proposed forward plans against a long-term criteria and to approve the present day pricing to achieve those goals.

    It also took them years to generate a realistic and meaningful engagement with mana whenua. Yet even this largest and most mature of water corporations has still planned water infrastructure so badly that it continues to need to truck human waste out of communities, over multiple years, to treatment plants, because developers were allowed to go ahead before the systems were ready to cope with it.

    The is second biggest issue.The ministerial approach is always political, same as the existing system.

    I have no particular problem with developers having to truck human waste – provided that the developers pay for it, are not allowed to charge water users for it, are responsible for it, and that it is a criminal matter to make sure it is done correctly.

    The water, roading, power, and even postal infrastructure should be in place before development starts. If developers want to start earlier, then they can pay for the infrastructure or services.

    The same equivalence applies to farmers, power companies, or anyone else. It should be a criminal matter for them to make sure everything is in place before they screw the environment.

    Reply
  12. Mountain Tui 12
    3 July 2025 at 8:08 pm

    This is an important article. It was always their plan to privatise it. Remember when Luxon said they'd never do that?

    Reply
  13. thinker 13
    4 July 2025 at 7:25 am

    Thinking back to whatever I think back to, in order to commercialize water (see my earlier post as to why it's more than privatisation we fear), there has to be a ban on private sources of rainwater, like tanks, within the water businsses' areas. That's one of the first signals of what's coming.

    Reply
    • Graeme 13.1
      4 July 2025 at 8:52 am

      That was one of my concerns with the way Taumata Arowai was regulating small supplies. Although firstly Self Suppliers, those that get roof water or their own spring / surface supply are completely exempt from regulation. The initial regulation and Acceptable Solutions for small suppliers was initially pretty practical, but some of the testing requirements were a bit steep and provided little benefit. Oh, and there were a few big words along the way that tripped some people up.

      Surprisingly Taumata Arowai listened to submissions and dramatically reduced the compliance burden on small and very small suppliers and now it's pretty easy if you've got anything holding your ears apart. Biggest issue for most suppliers is having the ability to work within a simple regulatory structure with a few big words.

      I'm quite impressed how easy it's become being the manager of a couple of small supplies, although that's predicated on nothing going wrong. What happens when Taumata Arowai has to come in with the big boots on and mandate changes is yet to be seen. But that's more likely to happen at a municipal level than the small supplier, legislation states they have to be 'proportionate' in their regulation. But they can send managers and directors to the big house.

      But TA can't do anything about someone who stores and uses roof water, or takes water from their own supply. Water suppliers can, and always have, put requirements on back flow, but that's because your toilet cistern and hot water cylinder are a bigger risk than any rainwater tank you may have.

      It won't be a subtle, incremental change to regulate self suppliers. That will requite amendment or really complete rewrite of the Water Services Act so will have to be debated in Parliament, and the most affected will be rural lifestyles and farmers who will tear National multiple new ones if they tried something like that.

      Reply
  14. ExpertCant 14
    6 July 2025 at 5:11 pm

    Valid critique. I just did not see this critique when an almost identical proposal was raised under the Labour 3 waters proposal. The Labour proposal would give 50% governance to iwi, making it undemocratic. Furthermore, giving governance to iwi is no better than privatisation because iwi are still corporate entities. It would have also merged failing councils, with councils who were quite successful in maintaing water infrastructure.

    [lprent: It didn’t give 50% governance.

    Iwi had a advisory role and iwi had the same vote as the representatives of the local bodies.Since there were always more of latter than the former, a 50% governance vote isn’t credible.

    Because of the differences in population of local bodies and iwi, there was never an intention of a ‘democratic’ representation in any case. It was more of senatorial division by region and interests.

    If you wish to assert otherwise then provide a credible links – which seems to be something that you have been incapable of achieving.

    I expect either an apology for crudely lying on our site or a credible link.

    In the meantime you are now on probation, and if I don’t receive one of the other, then I will permanently ban you as a ignorant troll. ]

    Reply

Leave a Comment