Stuff Digital Edition

Water reforms a ‘must have’

Tina Law tina.law@stuff.co.nz

Plans to strip councils of their water assets have been branded as ‘‘abhorrent’’ and ‘‘flawed’’ by local politicians, while ministers and industry experts believe the changes cannot happen quickly enough.

The Government announced yesterday it was bringing in legislation to create four publicly owned entities to control drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. These services have traditionally been the core business of 67 councils across New Zealand.

Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the changes would ensure every New Zealander had access to affordable, long-lasting drinking, waste and stormwater infrastructure without ballooning costs for households and families.

But councils, which were led to believe they could opt out of the reforms, are unhappy at having such a big decision taken away from them and their communities.

Some Christchurch city councillors have said there would be protests because they believed the Government was stealing assets – a claim that was being strenuously denied by Mahuta.

The public would still have the chance to make submissions on the new model, but only as part of the select committee process.

Christchurch city councillor James Gough said he was in ‘‘utter disbelief’’ at yesterday’s decision, which he described as ‘‘abhorrent on every level’’.

He said it was ‘‘a dark day for democracy in New Zealand’’.

‘‘This Government has just proven themselves to be a revolting pack of thieving liars.’’

South Island mayors have also expressed disappointment at the decision. They hoped many of their concerns about governance, representation and accountability would be addressed via three technical reference groups, which the Government was creating with iwi, industry and local government experts.

Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel said the Government had ‘‘robbed communities of a voice’’ by deciding to push through its ‘‘flawed’’ water reforms. She said the decision was a ‘‘breach of natural justice’’.

It was originally thought the decision put Christchurch City Council’s quest to have an unchlorinated drinking water supply at risk. But Dalziel said the Government had outlined a way for the council to pursue and maintain an exemption from chlorinating the water. Once granted, there would be provision for the new entity to provide chlorine-free drinking water and to consult with the communities

about further exemptions. ‘‘We are pleased the Government has listened to us on this point and made that concession.’’

Not everyone is upset by the Government’s announcement.

Nga¯i Tahu’s freshwater group Te Kura Taka Pini has welcomed the decision. Group co-chairman Dr Te Maire Tau said the reform would help ensure water services that were safe, high quality and equitable for communities, while improving outcomes for the environment.

‘‘It means that the impacts of water infrastructure on the environment of Te Wai Pounamu (South Island) can be managed for the good of all our interconnected communities in an integrated way that reflects best practice.’’

One of the four entities would cover 21 South Island councils, including Christchurch.

Tau acknowledged the reforms would mean change for some councils, and were not universally supported. ‘‘This is our opportunity to get it right for our children and grandchildren, and we

must put politics aside, and all unite in that effort.’’

It was proposed that the entity would be governed by a 12-person group, which would include six mana whenua representatives and six councillors from across the entity.

Water quality scientist Dr Lokesh Padhye, of Auckland University, said he believed councils’ opposition was because of a lack of clarity about how the entities were going to operate.

He said the structure of the entities needed to be carefully planned, but he viewed the reforms as a ‘‘must have’’ for the New Zealand water sector.

There was a consensus among water quality scientists across New Zealand that something needed to be done to safeguard the country’s water supply, Padhye said.

Government figures said that by transferring control of water assets to a new entity, households across the South Island entity would pay on average $1640 for an annual water bill in 2051.

If the city council kept delivering water in Christchurch, a household bill in the same year would be $2720.

However, the council’s independent analysis found the $1080 gap was actually closer to $660 or $460.

Christchurch’s three waters assets were expected to be worth $6.9 billion at the time of the proposed transfer in July 2024, and its debt would sit at $1.1b.

The Government was proposing to give the council $122.4 million in return.

Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), which has come under fire from councils for its stance over the water reforms, said it was disappointed the Government had mandated its reforms, but was happy to see the proposal was being refined.

LGNZ president Stuart Crosby said LGNZ would lend its efforts to improving the model so what was finally put in front of New Zealanders was a fit-for-purpose model that met the diverse needs of our communities.

Mahuta emphasised the Government was not confiscating, buying or selling assets. Councils would continue to collectively own the water service entities and communities would retain an influence on assets and services through their council and other consumer and community interest forums.

Front Page

en-nz

2021-10-28T07:00:00.0000000Z

2021-10-28T07:00:00.0000000Z

https://fairfaxmedia.pressreader.com/article/281483574593839

Stuff Limited