Three troubled Waters: Why did reform become so political?
Saturday, 16 April 2022
From an offensive ad to racial divisions, Three Waters has not been smooth sailing, Philip Matthews reports.
Everyone hated the ad. Do you remember? If you were watching television in 2021, you probably saw it.
It was an animated clip that depicted a dystopian New Zealand in a childish way, designed to convince the public of the urgent need for water reform. We saw green slimy water leaking out of showers and taps, grumpy fish and unhappy bird life, and we heard a colloquial delivery by actor Rachel House telling us that such a New Zealand would be a “stink as place”.
One of those watching in horror was Westland mayor Bruce Smith, who thought the ad was ridiculous, inaccurate and insulting, and better aimed at kindergarten children.
“Unable to have a shower? Really? What part of New Zealand are they talking about?” Smith asked in a video produced for the Coasters Club on Facebook.
**READ MORE:
* Deceased mayor's track record discussed during debate to join lobby group or prioritise Māori
* Water reforms put democracy and transparency under threat, councillor claims
* Anti-Three Waters campaign formalised in new group
**
He and other mayors wrote to the Minister of Local Government, Nanaia Mahuta, asking her to pull the ad, but she said no. There were six complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, but the authority also said it was fine.
After a few months, the Public Service Commission eventually ruled that the ads were “straying into advocating government policy”, rather than explaining it, and the ads disappeared.
Mahuta only recently acknowledged the ad was one of the things she got wrong about water reform.
For Helen Worboys, mayor of Manawatū District, which is headquartered in Feilding, the problematic ad, and the difficulties in getting Mahuta to cancel it, are just one example of the “broken” relationship between central and local government.
“There is no trust, and we’ve got to restore that,” Worboys says.
“They want to micromanage everything and control everything.”
To Worboys and other offended mayors, especially those in provincial and rural centres, the ad told New Zealanders that councils were failing to keep water infrastructure up to scratch, which is why the Government felt it must step in and take control. And while there are many examples that show this is true, there are also exceptions.
For example, Worboys says that when the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) assessed every council, Manawatū’s water infrastructure exceeded expectations.
“Those are the words they used.”
Worboys was instrumental in bringing together mayors and councils to fight or even halt the Government’s reforms, and they named their group Communities 4 Local Democracy (C4LD). Worboys is chair and Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon is deputy. Former Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) chief executive, the “well-connected” Malcolm Alexander, became project manager.
They hoped to get 20 councils on board, but it snowballed. They now have 31, close to half of New Zealand’s total of 67.
And while an obnoxious TV ad might seem relatively trivial, water reform is not. Beyond the vital issue of clean water, the argument illuminates two larger stories in New Zealand that will only become more heated, and possibly hostile, and they are the issue of co-governance with Māori and the tension between local and central politics, under a Government that has an urge to centralise.
Politics or a PR campaign?
The premise of the Three Waters reforms is that a combination of cost and debt issues, ageing infrastructure, growth and climate change will create expensive headaches for many councils.
The Government’s reforms will move the Three Waters services – drinking water, wastewater and stormwater – of 67 councils into four giant water service entities, to be run by regional representative groups. While the services will still be owned by councils, the entities will be co-governed equally by councils and mana whenua.
The question of whether bringing in more voices adds to democracy or takes it away is at the heart of the argument, and not just here but in an increasing number of stories about co-governance.
The C4LD group is opposed to co-governance in Three Waters. Worboys wonders if water infrastructure is really a speciality of mana whenua.
“We’ve said to the minister that iwi quite rightly have rights and interests in water fundamental to their culture, but their interests are about the quality of water, consenting and environmental issues, so why are you trying to throw them in an entity that’s going to talk about networks, size of pipes and how that all works?
“If we’re really genuine about iwi and the passion they have, wouldn’t you put them into the regulatory level of this reform? That’s what we’re saying.”
Adding mana whenua to the governance table will “divide this country even more”, Worboys says.
“Three Waters makes you question, what is the Government’s motive behind all this?” she says.
Her view is that “the Government is using this reform as a way to solve their Treaty issues. To me, bringing community assets into a discussion around the Treaty is not fair.
“It should not be on the table. Every council in this country works with their iwi in different ways.”
Water has not been the only contentious race-based issue in Manawatū. The council delayed the introduction of Māori wards in the district in 2021, which infuriated local Māori.
Worboys believes Three Waters reform is being “hijacked by the iwi issue” and thinks this is especially acute in the South Island, where the water services entity exactly matches the Ngāi Tahu takiwā, or tribal boundary. While Worboys says there are 28 iwi in her region alone, the south has just one big tribal body.
“Ngāi Tahu is not the be all and end all of New Zealand,” she says.
The tension is palpable. One possible reason is that “Ngāi Tahu will not sit down with C4LD, even though we have asked and asked,” she says.
Ngāi Tahu historian Te Maire Tau, who co-chairs the Papatipu Rūnanga committee with Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel, confirms this.
“C4LD have not met with our rūnanga and our rūnanga do not want to meet with them,” he explains. “We engaged with all the South Island councils nearly 18 months ago at our central headquarters, and we agreed to work collectively.
“Some decided not to and that signifies their depth of their ‘treaty commitments’ in the South Island.”
South Island councils that joined up with C4LD, and paid contributions ranging from $10,000 for a rural council and $15,000 for a provincial council to $20,000 for a metropolitan council, are Grey District, Westland, Queenstown Lakes, Mackenzie, Waimate, Timaru, Ashburton, Waimakariri, Hurunui, Kaikoura and Marlborough, according to C4LD’s website.
Controversially, Christchurch is also on the list, making it the only metropolitan council in the South Island to sign up. Whangārei is the only metropolitan council in the north.
The Dunedin City Council was also involved, albeit briefly. It dropped out after two Otago rūnanga protested by suspending their involvement with a council working committee.
Dunedin mayor Aaron Hawkins backs the rūnanga.
“The Dunedin City Council has made commitments to honouring the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, underpinning everything else we do,” he says. “In that context, joining a group that has demonstrated no real interest in working with iwi/Māori was always going to present a problem for us.”
He asks: “What signal does it send to your partner if you prioritise working with someone else, someone who’s not interested in them, on an issue as significant as this?”
“Dunedin’s mayor never supported us anyway, that was obvious,” Worboys says.
It was a close vote in Dunedin. Hawkins says some elected members “appear to have been comfortable in accepting a strained relationship with mana whenua as collateral damage” of their protest against the Government.
It was also close further north, where Selwyn mayor Sam Broughton’s casting vote kept his district out of C4LD, meaning Selwyn is now geographically hemmed in by C4LD supporters.
Broughton’s explanation is that you can make more of a difference inside the tent than out. He says it is better to influence change that is inevitable than “wasting time and falling behind by taking an adversarial approach”.
He adds that his council has built up a strong relationship with local rūnanga who wrote to council and asked them not to join.
Christchurch’s decision has been the most tumultuous and the messiest. Its council voted to join without consulting mana whenua, an oversight for which Dalziel has taken responsibility, although she abstained from the vote because of her role on a Three Waters working group.
There were similar uncomfortable scenes in Masterton, where the district council joined C4LD but its mayor, Lyn Patterson, also abstained due to sitting on the working group.
As for whether Christchurch can do what Dunedin did and reverse its decision, Dalziel says she wants all councillors to meet with the chairs of the Papatipu Rūnanga before she puts the possibility of withdrawing on the council agenda.
“I have asked if I could have that face to face opportunity,” Dalziel says.
Ngāi Tahu’s public expressions of displeasure have not sat well with Worboys, who accuses the iwi of “putting pressure” on councils, and even “threatening” them.
Tau’s view is that C4LD’s goal is to stall reforms to preserve the status quo, and considers their interest in “meaningful mana whenua involvement” to be a smokescreen.
“They made no effort to engage with iwi before their launch,” Tau says. “Subsequently they have advanced two alternative models, designed by consultants, with no iwi input.
“That’s obvious in the design of those alternatives, which are variations on leaving the status quo intact and hoping for the best. It provides no meaningful pathway for participation by iwi/Māori.”
He concludes that C4LD is “essentially a PR campaign, and not a serious working group on Three Waters”.
A proxy war about race
If it is a PR campaign, then who gains from stalling or undermining the reforms?
Worboys has been clear that C4LD is not aligned with any political party or group, but others have seen a similarity to National’s messaging, embodied in its recent announcement that it would repeal Three Waters legislation in government.
But like National, C4LD does support the new water regulator, Taumata Arowai.
“Fantastic, we should have had that 30 years ago,” Worboys says.
Like C4LD, National leader Christopher Luxon would rather see collaboration between councils than a top-down approach.
“Ratepayers have paid to own their water assets over decades,” he says. “It’s vital they keep control of those assets. Amalgamation and centralisation will take away a community’s voice.”
While National supports co-governance in the context of Treaty settlements, it doesn’t support it when it comes to public services.
“Labour has misled and dismissed the concerns of local government, and ignored the overwhelmingly negative public opinion on Three Waters,” Luxon says. “This is an issue that’s important to many New Zealanders, and the Government has mishandled it from the start.”
As for whether National supports or endorses C4LD, Luxon says: “C4LD has proposed alternative solutions that would uphold local democracy and address the real problems councils face with water infrastructure. The Government should seriously consider what they have to say.
“National MPs, including our local government spokesperson Simon Watts, engage regularly with C4LD.”
As well as ideological similarity, critics also point out there are National figures in the group, including deputy chairperson Dan Gordon, who has stood as a National candidate and was a president of the Young Nats.
But Hawkins sees a broader, less obvious alliance. Yes, there are “very strong links” to the National Party, and in Dunedin, the push for council to join was led by an active member of the party, “but others don’t fit that description, like current and former local politicians in Christchurch who are aligned with the Labour Party, and here in Dunedin from those who self-identify as ‘to the left of Labour’.
“On the flipside of that, our move to cancel our membership got support from members of National, Labour and the Greens. So it’s complicated.”
Indeed. The opposition on the left often comes from those opposed to privatisation, which they believe could easily follow the creation of four large water entities. That concern has been widespread, and is not just an issue on the fringes.
As Hawkins notes, making a noise about co-governance also has obvious political impact.
“We’re being naïve if we don’t see how the Three Waters reforms are being used as a proxy war, in a debate about what it means to be a bicultural nation,” he says.
“We see the uglier end of that debate being stirred up now by political parties inside and outside of parliament.”
Politics gets in the way. It’s the same as it ever was.
“We’re no strangers to this,” Tau says. “Ngāi Tahu kickstarted the modern Treaty settlement process, and our marae and buildings were firebombed. We faced all manner of suspicions, including that we would close the Routeburn Track.
“In terms of Three Waters itself, it’s clear that reform is necessary. Anyone on a council who reads their accounts knows that. It’s a time bomb for ratepayers. But the same incentives for election that have led to underinvestment over many years also encourage politicians to ignore the pressing needs of our communities in favour of sloganeering.
“The Ngāi Tahu legislation is quite clear that we have ‘rangatiratanga’ and the Crown is required to ‘co-operate’, not just consult or work in a ‘bicultural’ manner.
“We’re a permanent part of the community – we were here first, and we will always be here. That’s a contrast to the three-yearly cycles of local government.”
As for co-governance, it “has been happening for many years, successfully, all around New Zealand,” Tau says. “Most people simply haven’t noticed it because nothing has materially changed in their day-to-day lives.”
Speaking from a mayoral perspective about two recent arrangements, Broughton says “the mana whenua voice added layers of richness to our reporting, thinking and decision-making that would have been absent had they not been there.
“It is also cheaper and more efficient to have co-governance like this as it saves lots of appeals at the end of a programme.”
Can changes be made?
Worboys remembers that when C4LD presented its alternative vision to a Three Waters working group, it didn’t get much of a hearing.
“They knew they had to listen to us, but they had no intention of doing anything about it,” she says.
But some critics, speaking anonymously, say it was “tone-deaf” of C4LD to complain about co-governance to a group that was already operating in that mode, made up of nine iwi/Māori representatives and an equal number of mayors, overseen by an independent chair.
The working group came back with recommendations last month, including a public shareholding model to allay fears of privatisation, and another layer of local representation. One of the iwi representatives on the working group, Tukuroirangi Morgan, reassured people that privatisation does not fit the Māori worldview.
Western Bay of Plenty mayor Garry Webber, who was on the working group, agreed: “The shares are owned by the councils, and iwi/Māori have never sought ownership of the water. Iwi focus has been on the health of water, which is what New Zealand’s focus should be on.”
The working group stressed the importance of Te Mana o te Wai, which has gone relatively undiscussed in political arguments about the reforms. It is a national vision to preserve streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands.
Broughton says he will be very disappointed if the Government doesn’t accept the recommendations.
Dalziel stayed quiet about Three Waters during her time on the working group but a PowerPoint presentation for Christchurch’s Tuesday Club in mid-March outlined her thinking. It stressed she is not an advocate for the reform, and wants further changes. She also noted, as others have said, that it has been too rushed.
She outlined what she called the big issues and the important issues. The big ones were the lack of compensation to councils, the threat of privatisation, the loss of council control and community input. But the important issues seemed to be on the positive side of the ledger, including strengthening Te Mana o te Wai, which needs co-governance, providing equity of access to water services, righting the wrongs of history and creating intergenerational investment.
She urged those present to watch a video about the restoration of the Ahuriri wetlands, which showed what can be done. She cited the thinking of Dame Anne Salmond, on “letting the rivers speak”. Salmond has also warned about the imposition of the reforms.
As for co-governance, Dalziel told the Tuesday Club it was being used to “push political agendas” by those on the right.
Another former Labour cabinet minister turned mayor on the working group, Auckland’s Phil Goff, remains a naysayer, arguing his supercity should be left out.
It is a democracy issue for Goff, with Auckland contributing 93 per cent of the assets and 90 per cent of the population in the northernmost water entity, but reduced to a minority voice in its governance. Unlike Dalziel, Goff is opposed to mana whenua co-governance of Three Waters.
Gisborne mayor Rehette Stoltz, who was not on the working group, is another who sees the new level of bureaucracy as “eye-watering”.
Wellington mayor Andy Foster has not said whether he supports the reforms. Nor can the region’s mayors agree if the reforms would have prevented recent fluoridation woes caused by ageing infrastructure.
A sense that local control is vanishing and Wellington is taking over is common across the regions. Central Hawke’s Bay District Council mayor Alex Walker told Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that she has “lost the people” on the path to water reform.
Tararua District Councillorsposed with a sign that said “Keep the dirty commies out of our clean water”.
In this information war, the DIA can respond with compelling statistics on behalf of the Government. It says that 35,000 New Zealanders get sick every year from tap water that doesn’t meet international standards. It says that 20 per cent of drinking water is lost on its way to households. It says that around a third of wastewater treatment plants are breaching consents, and nearly 20 per cent need upgrades to meet minimum freshwater standards.
In the background there is the Havelock North crisis in 2016, when four people died and nearly 60 were hospitalised during a gastro outbreak. That crisis set the reforms in motion.
But you don’t want to be left with the bill. Fixing the problem has been calculated at between $120 billion and $185b nationwide over the next 30 years, which is unaffordable for many councils.
As a mayor who prefers to stay anonymous says, “It’s hard to get public buy-in for putting up rates to fund things that are unseen until they go wrong. Someone has to pay for the work to be done.”
So there is an enormous problem that needs fixing, even though some councils have been doing a fine job by themselves.
The Government intends to have the new system running in July 2024. And no-one seems to doubt that it will happen, even though the C4LD has further campaigns to run.
The recent announcement of Maria Nepia as executive director, Three Waters Iwi/Māori at the Department of Internal Affairs, has followed other key appointments. A new power structure is taking shape.
“They are going around the country, offering our expert staff crazy salaries, crazy opportunities, using taxpayer money, and if you’re an employee of council, of course you’re going to jump,” Worboys says.
It is about a lack of trust for Worboys. Cabinet papers from 2021 show the Government was set on a mandatory “all-in” approach before the four entities model was announced and consulted on.
Three Waters is just one piece of the larger picture, she says. A major reform, called the Future for Local Government, is on the way. It will be the biggest local government shake-up since 1989.
“There are 19 reforms or reviews on the table that impact councils and communities right at the moment and this Government thinks they are going to have them all solved by the election next year,” she says.
But she thinks “there is no masterplan, no integration of how all those reforms will work, and the Future for Local Government is down the list. We’re only just starting to talk about that now. In councils’ view, that should have been the first reform.”
You can say she has seen the Future, and it leaves her unimpressed.
“We’re all cynical. We’re going, if this is going to head the same way as the process you did for Three Waters reform, you already know what you’re going to do. It’s going to be a done deal.”