Centralisation is too blunt a political tool Warwick Rasmussen

Sometimes major change can be an easy sell. If you’ve got something clunky, inefficient and that delivers poor results, change is often welcome and even necessary.

If you’re in charge of bringing that change, it helps if you point out that the status quo can’t carry on and a better alternative is just around the corner.

The Labour Government pitched one of those alternatives this week, with its major Three Waters announcement. A cumbersome and archaic setup means that more than 60 councils have effectively been in charge of looking after our drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems.

So, with the wave of a legislative wand, Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta hopes to do some simple maths by boiling those 60-plus organisations down to four.

It’s broken, so we’re fixing it by having greater centralised control, was the message from the minister.

The pitch to the public is around cost savings, efficiency. The flurry of information that came with Mahuta’s announcement hammered that point home, with graphs, forecasts and estimates showing thousands of dollars saved per household 30 years from now.

Of course Labour is making political hay while the sun shines, but centralising to this level and attempting to untangle our water woes is aspirational at best.

Greater central control instantly means loss of local control and, by connection, loss of local knowledge.

This is the kind of knowledge that’s been built up over decades, where people know the challenges and fixes distinct to their own communities.

For example, the reforms would mean one of the four new entities (Entity C) would span from the East Coast in the North Island, in a strip of the country that makes its way down to Wellington, and also includes Nelson and Marlborough.

Is it right that the water needs and concerns that the people of Gisborne have are lumped in with those of the capital? Or Blenheim? Or Motueka?

It’s clear the patchwork of organisations we have now is not fit for purpose; change was necessary and inevitable.

Centralisation is a blunt and powerful tool that should be used sparingly. But this Government is well aboard the amalgamation bandwagon.

Since coming to power the Sixth Labour Government has announced some hefty reforms (that are in various states of transition).

Earlier this year we heard that the country’s district health boards are for the scrap heap, to be replaced by an amorphous agency called Health NZ, along with a complementary Ma¯ ori health agency.

But there’s also been the creation of Te Pu¯ kenga, the mega-agency, which overlooks the country’s 16 polytechnics, and plans for central control of fluoride in our water falling under the powers of the directorgeneral of health (at the moment decisions are made by individual councils).

We also have Governmentappointed commissioners – who can earn about $2000 a day – taking control of a smattering of dysfunctional councils.

These changes in power structure are largely justified – particularly when it comes to fluoride – but there comes a point when pragmatism becomes over-reach.

So, what will be next? The Ministry of Education, the electricity sector? Remember then Labour leader David Shearer and then Greens coleader Russel Norman’s attempts in 2013 to fire up an entity called NZ Power, with the angle being that it would save households money? (Spoiler alert: it didn’t happen.)

Taking over at a central level does not make things all rosy and consequence-free.

Such reforms can cause great upheaval, so there needs to be a degree of certainty that the change will work – because trying to undo them is like stopping a fast-moving train.

The late Dave Cull, former Dunedin mayor and president of Local Government New Zealand, said last year that central government needed to ‘‘incentivise local authorities to be good stewards of their regions’’.

And that can be at the root of all concerns.

People at a community or regional level, no matter the organisation, want to be seen, heard, and understood, otherwise even the best-laid plans to subtract power can cause division and resentment.

This Government is well aboard the amalgamation bandwagon.