Whatever it was for, it was not for water
AS the government moves on from Three Waters it is time for a review of the nitty gritty of what actually happened in Otago under the proposal.
A total of $1.1 billion was spent on Three Waters before it was scrapped. This included over $500 million on water infrastructure; $500m was also earmarked for socalled ‘‘Better Off Funding’’ (BOF).
In Otago our local territorial authorities received close to $50m from the water infrastructure funds. In ascending order of funding, the Clutha District Council received $6.4m, Waitaki District Council $7.46m, Central Otago District Council $9.46m, Queenstown Lakes District Council $9.48m and Dunedin City Council $15.8m. These funds look on the face of it to be money well spent, on useful waterrelated work and involve a transfer of close to $50m from central government to local councils. The BOF, however, is seriously misnamed as having anything to do with Three Waters.
The agreement between councils and the government describes the objectives of this BOF as demonstrating ‘‘central government confidence in the future of local government’’. They sought to do this by providing funds to support local wellbeing outcomes in a way that ‘‘aligns with the priorities of central and local government’’ through giving support to communities to transition to a sustainable and lowemission economy — including building resilience to climate change and natural hazards; delivering infrastructure and/or services that enabled housing development and growth with a focus on brownfields and infill developments when available and/or supporting local place making and improvements in community wellbeing.
The agreement describes the funds available as being $500m. Locally our councils in Otago received around $22m, $9.9m of which went to the DCC.
Maybe the BOF was suggested as an ‘‘encouragement’’ for councils to get on board, since Three Waters was going to be a voluntary arrangement. Call it an incentive, or a bribe, or pork barrel politics: what it is not is funding for water assets.
Our local councils have spent their BOF on wildly different projects. While generally spending of councils comes under public scrutiny in the longterm plan process, this offer of money from the government was a grabitnow or loseit arrangement.
The staff at councils (it appears) were given the task of proposing to their councils what pet projects they would like to see happen, or in some cases be accelerated.
The QLDC went on a planning fiesta, spending its money on developing plans as widespread as travel demand, pest control and a key economic diversification plan initiative — whatever that is.
The DCC standout spends were on zero carbon initiatives ($1.5m), climate change adaptation ($1.45m), various advisory arrangements and engagement with tangata whenua ($1.7m) and South Dunedin Future and acceleration of climate change adaptation ($1.45m).
The CODC’s focus was on library services ($1m), hall and community centre spending and pool fencing/liners.
The WDC was the only council which put any funding into housing, under its delivering healthy affordable homes for all programme. It also gave some hints to what it thought placemaking is by describing its placemaking ventures as including a streetscape review on Oamaru and Omarama and Otematata town centre plans. Clutha also followed the path of pool/library/service centre/ streetscape improvements. So what could be taken from this brief review?
Central government needs watching all the time, and will hide stuff under headings which are completely inappropriate. The money actually spent on waterrelated activities is likely to have been well spent.
The longterm planning process councils undertake is nonsense when the community has no idea what priorities the council will throw up when it gets offered a sweetener by government.
Many of the new staff appointed to carry out these temporary works in shortterm money will likely continue to be employed now the funding has stopped. In fact some council reports back to government said the funds were helping to build up staff in critical areas. Taking on staff should be thought about carefully if it is hard to lose them when the project is done.
This is particularly important if the projects have not been ones which are priorities of the community.
hcalvert@xtra.co.nz