In defence of the water reforms
OPINION: Only New Zealand, perhaps, could turn a subject as potentially dull as water reform into something that feels more like a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Somehow, almost everything we thought we knew about Three Waters now turns out to have been wrong.
We thought it was about ownership of community assets, but it isn’t. We thought it was about co-governance and now – allegedly – it never was. We thought it was about the management of community water assets. Yet given the
$120 billion to $185 billion price tag for fixing them, those assets look far more like liabilities weighing upon ratepayers.
Some of us believed the reforms posed a threat to democracy but – allegedly – this process is business as usual in those situations where state agencies have Treaty obligations. In such contexts, a 50/50 Treaty partnership is not based on how many Māori and non-Māori exist in the wider population.
We thought that making the plan more responsive to local voices would be a good thing. Eventually, it may be. Along the way though, the expansion from four to 10 water entities will be less efficient, and more costly for ratepayers.
Lastly, Three Waters is now called Affordable Water Reform. It can be hard to keep up.
Thankfully, last week wasn’t solely an exercise in befuddlement. Belatedly, the Government has found someone within its ranks – namely, Local Government Minister Kieran McAnulty – able to explain the water reforms in ordinary language, and willing to address all the commonly held fears and objections.
As the Twitterverse commented, middle New Zealand has to warm to a guy who rocks up in a ute and starts off by saying ‘‘Here’s the guts of it.’’
Before McAnulty, other Cabinet ministers had tried to explain that those costly-to-fix assets are not being ripped from the grasp of local communities. Communities will still own them, but the assets will be run by the boards of entities able to deliver (a) the economies of scale and (b) the financial and operational independence that is being demanded by the agencies lending the funds.
On the thorny issue of cogovernance, it is technically correct for the Government to claim this was never in play, given that the boards running each of the 10 water entities will be selected on merit. However, those boards will have been appointed by a consultative group where iwi comprise 50% of the members, in line with the
Treaty partnership.
No problem with that, surely. In the 21st century, it should not come as a shock that Treaty rights are not based on what ratio of the population that mana whenua comprise.
Advisory committees in many other areas of government activity contain Māori members in line with Treaty obligations.
In the case of water, the Supreme Court has formally recognised that Māori have a special interest in water rights, under the Treaty.
Meaning: those rights would need to be formally enacted in any new system of water management.
The reform package is due to be phased in gradually from early 2025 onwards. If it wins the October election, will National really want to take the whole process back to square one?