$500 a day but no report
In the heat of last year’s election campaign, under-fire Prime Minister Bill English put experts to work on how to solve the problem of taxing water for export.
Revelations about foreign-owned companies bottling fresh water for sale and paying virtually nothing for pristine spring and aquifer water had put the Government under pressure and sparked protests.
English asked a group of independent technical experts for advice on who would charge for water and what they could charge. They were meant to report back in November, kicking the contentious issue into the long grass until after the election.
But now Stuff can reveal no report was ever written – despite the consultants being paid more than $500-a-day for their time.
The group of technical experts was put together in May 2016, to look at water allocation and nutrients. In March last year, English extended that brief, writing to the nine consultants asking them to consider ‘‘the issues around exporting water’’.
He told media at his weekly press conference they would report back after September’s election, likely in November.
In a letter from ministers to the group, they wrote: ‘‘We look forward to receiving the advice on these issues and options for reform later this year.’’
The group’s chairman, David Caygill, said the group met six to 12 times, and discussed the bottling issue at just one meeting.
No report was ever delivered in the group’s 18-month existence. The nine members of the group were flown to Wellington to discuss the issues, where officials took notes.
That cost taxpayers more than $80,000 – almost $50,000 of which was on $500-a-day fees. Expenses made up $7213, and flights $24,532. They last met in early August last year.
Caygill said the group was not asked specifically to produce a report.
‘‘There might have been a slight misunderstanding . . . there was a formal request to that group to offer advice or report on the issue. Which we did in the sense that we had a discussion at a couple of meetings, certainly one main meeting.
‘‘We didn’t produce a formal written report but then I don’t think we were expected to. The way the group was working was a little unusual. The group was there to advise officials . . . it was told it was not expected to provide any report, that would be over to officials.’’
The group members were all experts with practical experience of water management practice. Caygill did not accept his $625-a-day fee as chairman, because he considered the work an extension of his role as an Environment Canterbury councillor.
Caygill said officials did report to ministers ‘‘on at least one occasion early on’’ but added: ‘‘I’ve no knowledge if they subsequently reported.’’
He hoped the advice given to officials would prove useful to the new Government but noted they were taking a different approach. Labour and NZ First have a coalition agreement to introduce a levy but that is likely some way off.
National’s environment spokesman, Scott Simpson, said ministers did expect an official report from the group.
‘‘The clear instruction was to get a report by the end of the year. It was clearly intended there would be multiple meetings and the technical advisory group would then produce a detailed report on the best way forward.
‘‘This work was underway prior to the election and the Government needs to explain why no report was written and what instructions regarding the requested report it gave to the group.’’
Environment Minister David Parker confirmed the expert group was at an end. ‘‘There have been no reports received from the Water Allocation Technical Advisory Group . . . it was never asked for a
report.’’