Councils’ plea fails to sway Govt

A submission by the Nelson, Tasman and Marlborough councils along with Te Tauihu iwi calling for a change in the Three Waters reform boundaries has not borne fruit.

Representatives from the councils and iwi made an oral submission in August to Parliament’s finance and expenditure committee, supporting an earlier call for the top of the south to come under the umbrella of water service entity D – with the rest of the South Island.

However, in its report released on November 11, the select committee stuck with the original proposal – that the water services provided by Nelson City Council, along with most of those provided by the Marlborough district and Tasman district councils be amalgamated into water service entity C, which also includes the east coast of the North Island, down to and including Wellington.

Under that original proposal, parts of Marlborough and Tasman districts – within the boundaries of the takiwa (tribal territory) of Ngai Tahu – are to come under the umbrella of entity D.

During his oral submission in August, Tasman district mayor Tim King said entity D was a better geographic and identity fit for the top of the south. A move under entity D would also align with recent changes in boundaries for health to have the South Island as one entity.

Yesterday, King said he was disappointed the select committee did not recommend a change to entity D for the entire top of the south. It was also frustrating that three ‘‘significant’’ areas of central government reform – health, education and three waters – had entities or regions proposed for each ‘‘and none of the boundaries are the same’’.

‘‘None of the boundaries are aligned,’’ King said. ‘‘It makes for an inefficient working relationship between everybody.’’

Last week, a letter signed by the mayors of the three councils and representatives of the eight Te Tauihu iwi was sent to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Associate Minister of Local Government Kieran McAnulty urging reconsideration.

‘‘We are extremely disappointed in this outcome and request that you reconsider our collective recommendation and request to include our three water services and assets in entity D,’’ the letter says.

It was ‘‘not an overall endorsement of the Three Waters Reform Programme but simply a request to move to entity D’’.

‘‘We each have our reasons for this position including cultural identity and connection,

geographic fit, commonality with other communities, and alignment with Government’s recent health reform boundaries,’’ the letter says. ‘‘Collectively we request that you respect our request and make this change to the Water Service Entities Bill.’’

King yesterday said he was not aware of any response to the letter to date.

Although the select committee did not recommend changing the boundaries, it did propose some changes including extending the role of proposed regional advisory panels. The select committee report also says the bill should be clear that the entities’ role would be ‘‘to support planning processes as ‘plan-takers’, rather than ‘planmakers’ (that is, territorial authorities would retain control over planning, and WSEs would give effect to their plans)’’.

King questioned how that would work in practice, with many council staff expected to transfer to the water service entity. ‘‘How are we going to do the planning without resources?’’

Overall, King said he did not believe the changes made it clearer who would be responsible and accountable for water services under the reform.