Two cheers for the Three Waters reforms

When I was in form one I had a particularly good teacher who taught what education experts today would call a multidisciplinary curriculum. Perhaps because he was into environmentalism – big in the 1970s – our teacher got the whole class studying Wellington’s water. I remember making a 3-D scale model of the region’s catchment, so we could literally feel where our water came from. Our fascinating unit culminated in a field trip to Kaitoke to see first-hand what we’d been studying, which we loved.

Sadly, my knowledge of Wellington’s water hasn’t progressed much since then. What I do know is that years of council underinvestment means that billions of dollars will be needed to replace ageing pipes. So surely central government offering to take control of water under the Three Waters scheme is a godsend?

Porirua mayor Anita Baker – no Labour lackey – is strongly supportive. With a big per-dwelling population, leaving relatively few ratepayers, not to mention years of underinvestment, Porirua can only afford about half of its future water needs.

Other local body leaders are unconvinced. Upper Hutt Mayor Wayne Guppy described Three Waters as ‘‘disappointing’’, with central government reneging on the ‘‘opt out’’ option initially presented to local authorities.

Wellington mayor Andy Foster accepts change is needed but has problems with the scheme. He worries that local voices could be lost in the four massive entities that will control the country’s water. He has a point – how much in common do Wellingtonians have with, say, rural people outside of Gisborne? Yes, having over 60 authorities currently running our water seems ridiculous, but is having only four overkill?

Foster is not the only one worried about the possible lack of local input. There is a feeling of powerlessness, especially amongst smaller local bodies, given how big the entities will be. And it doesn’t help that, according to left-leaning former Christchurch mayor Garry Moore, the Cabinet papers on Three Waters were written before the summary of submissions from local government had been completed. Moore calls Three Waters ‘‘the worst abuse of power I have ever seen by central government towards local government’’.

Could we still have Three Waters reform with four entities but with a mechanism for more local input? It’s the lack of local representation that seems to be the biggest sticking point for local body politicians.

An issue that has been particularly focused on by Groundswell protesters has been iwi involvement. Under the system, iwi will have 50 per cent of the say – the other half local councils – on who forms the selection panel to appoint the board for each entity. Yet board members have to be approved by the minister. So if the potential board is, say, light on water experts, the minister can make changes.

Let’s face it, under the current system, Mā ori have had very little influence on decisions about water. Do you think our freshwater environment would be in its present parlous state if Mā ori had been consulted more in the past? This move goes a little way towards the Treaty principle of partnership.

Last weekend’s protests showed some overt racism about Three Waters, while groups like the Taxpayers Union are more subtle when they say ‘‘unelected iwi groups (will have) the negotiating power to impose new costs on ratepayers such as water royalties’’ and that co-governance is iwi control, which it is not.

The Government claims Three Waters will lower costs, saving us all money. They will certainly have better access to money at lower rates, and one would hope that four entities are cheaper to run than more than 60. But I am a little suspicious of the ‘‘economies of scale’’ argument when I remember that this was exactly the same argument behind this Government’s failed KiwiBuild plan.

So is the Government seizing the hard-earned assets of the ratepayers, as many protesters claimed last weekend? No – the public will still own the water. However, you can understand people’s concern given that both councils and governments have privatised assets in recent times.

Ironically, if you live in Wellington – which used to have publicly-owned municipal buses, electricity, a works department and an airport – you have more to fear from the privatising of council-owned assets than government-owned ones. In the last year we have seen an almost-sale of parts of the public library and an unsuccessful attempt to sell the council share in the airport.

There are deep divisions about Three Waters reform, and it’s not all Left versus Right. Despite the problems, if the Government can ensure locals can have more say, I can see some good. After all, it would be nice in the future if form one (sorry, year 7) students could make scale models of the region’s water system and not have to ask their teacher how to create pipe geysers, swimming forbidden signs and sewage spills.

Two cheers for Three Waters.

If the Government can ensure locals can have more say, I can see some good [in the Three Waters reforms].