What is 'Three Waters' and why is everyone so angry?

Wednesday, 3 November 2021

SATIRE: Kia ora! My name is Robbie and I’m another White Man Behind A Desk.

Today, we’re talking about local government. We’ve tried to talk about local government before, and if there’s one thing we’ve learnt about local government it’s that nobody cares about local government.

Unfortunately, just because something’s boring doesn’t mean it’s not important: congratulations, Joe Biden.

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

Local government is currently in charge of things that really matter, like making sure the water that comes out of your taps doesn’t kill you, or your streets aren’t flooded, or that effluent leaves your house rather than collecting in jars.

People call all this infrastructure ‘Three Waters,’ which covers drinking water, rain water and sewage, so, I think we can all agree that its more accurate title should be two waters and s… .

**READ MORE:

* Waikato-Tainui says iwi voice crucial in three waters reform

* Audacity of water assets grab boggles the mind

* Perplexed by the Three Waters Reform? You're not alone

**

Currently, 85 per cent of this infrastructure is managed by local government, and while some councils are handling it pretty well, some of them really, really aren’t.

In Wellington, human faeces has been running down the streets because of decades of under-investment in sewerage infrastructure. In Auckland, sewage flows into the sea whenever it rains too hard. And in Havelock North, an estimated 8320 people were infected by the tap-water, some of whom were left permanently disabled, and, tragically, four of them died.

Local governments are doing a s….. job, often literally, and New Zealanders are paying the price.

WHY DO COUNCILS SUCK SO BAD?

So, first off - why? Why are so many local governments so bad at this? Well, it depends who you ask, but a lot of people would argue that, like most problems, it’s about money.

Local governments are bad at raising cash. The central government, the one in the big novelty insect-building in Wellington, collects money through sneaky taxes that you don’t really notice. They take a cut of how much you earn or how much you spend.

But local government gets their money from “rates”, which are based on the value of properties that you own. This means that once a year local government has to go cap-in-hand to the worst people in New Zealand (by which of course I mean property-owners) and say: “Hi, here’s the bill. I decided how much it would be, and I’d really like it if you re-elected me next year, please”.

As you might imagine, that makes it quite difficult to raise a lot of money.

The second reason local government sucks at investing in water infrastructure is because their water assets are all tied up with the other stuff they own.

Currently, councils have a debt-limit of 280 per cent, but the Department of Internal Affairs reckons an entity that solely ran the water infrastructure – that just ran the water stuff – would be able to borrow a lot more money, more in the range of 800 per cent.

That’s a lot more leverage to invest a lot more money. That’s because water is a safe bet. It’s always a good investment. It will always be in demand. Like Doc Martens or Jelly-Tips, we’re always going to need it.

THE LABOUR PARTY’S PROPOSAL

So, with all this in mind, the government brought in the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, or WICS, to look at our water infrastructure and make some suggestions.

Then the Labour Party allegedly considered a bunch of options (which we’re not allowed to see) and made a cautious and thoughtful decision based on the WICS numbers (that other experts have said are wrong).

Not letting the details hold them back, and accepting that sometimes to get stuff done you just have to pick an idea and run with it, the Labour Party has put together a proposal and they hope you like it, because it’s happening either way!

The first thing they’ve proposed is a drinking water regulation authority called Taumata Arowai. Pretty much everyone is on board with this, even Judith Collins. Basically, there will be an organisation that makes sure our water is safe to drink.

This is one of those new organisations that’s kind of worrying to hear about, because it means it didn’t previously exist.

The second proposal is much, much more controversial. In fact, a lot of people hate it. All the councils are going to be split into one of four regions, drawn roughly along Super Rugby lines. Apparently. I don’t know anything about rugby, but that’s what I’ve been told.

Together those four groups will nominate some people, and then those people will nominate a board of directors, and those directors will run all the water stuff for their quarter of the country. Councils will collectively own all the water assets in their region, but they won’t make any decisions. Those decisions will be made by the board.

The four entities are currently called ‘Entity A, Entity B, Entity C, and Entity 4.’ Due to a clerical error. No, it’s Entity D. That was just a silly joke. I’m sorry.

Each of the four boards will let the rate-payers in their region know how much everything costs in an annual bill, so no more issues raising money there, and they’ll be responsible for investing in our sewerage systems and preparing for the oncoming climate apocalypse. They’re going to make all the water infrastructure calls and councils won’t.

It’s kind of a huge deal. Managing Three Waters can be as much as half of a council’s job, and now it won’t be.

A LOT OF PEOPLE HATE IT

So as with all big and exciting proposals, as I previously said, a lot of people hate it.

A lot of councils are pretty p…ed off they’ve spent huge amounts of money investing in state-of-the-art water systems, working extremely hard to meet the needs of their people, only to be forced into a group project with a lazy kid named Wellington who’s busy smearing himself with sh… Human sh.. .

Labour has created a fund of two and a half billion dollars to compensate the councils who are getting shafted, but many feel that isn’t enough.

Labour initially said, if councils didn’t like the plan they were welcome to opt out, and then people started opting out, so Labour said it was compulsory. Which is kind of like trying to flee the Titanic only to find out that all the lifeboats were painted on the whole time.

National thinks the plan is terrible apart from the drinking water regulator. They’ve promised to repeal it once they get into power and replace it with their plan which can most easily be described as, ‘Whatever you think the best plan is - that’s our plan.’

Overall, most people are p…ed off they’ve not been presented with any other options. Labour just picked a strategy and is absolutely running with it.

And sure, only putting forward one option and not letting people discuss any alternatives might not be the best strategy to come up with the best idea, but I don’t think that Labour wants to put any options out there that might allow councils to keep any real power, because Labour thinks that councils suck.

And, again, in my opinion, and this is something I very rarely say, so savour the moment – Labour is right. Councils do suck. While people are worried that the entity boards will be less accountable to the public than councils, you’ve got to realise that up till now, councils were only accountable to a very specific part of the public.

In 2019, local government voter turnout was 42.2 per cent, and who is that 42 per cent? Old rich people.

Local governments are heavily weighted in favour of old rich folks and their preferences, which are to not have to pay too much money in rates every year and not to invest in the future, when they’ll be dead.

IT’S NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S WATER

Okay, good. I’ve explained the problem and the proposed solution and even though it seems like we’ve not properly considered the alternatives and some of the promises from Labour about creating thousands more jobs while somehow paying less money seem suspicious to say the least, sometimes you’ve just got to ride the momentum of a half-decent plan to get something done.

But before I go, there’s one thing that I haven’t mentioned which is that in 1840 some folks signed a document called Te Tiriti O Waitangi, which is very important, even if it doesn’t seem important when you look at any of our laws or society in general.

The Labour Party has very carefully decided not to address water ownership in this proposal, but what it does involve is rangatiratanga - the governance, management, and decision-making over what happens to our water. And that is pretty close to ownership. If I technically own a car, but you get to decide where it is at all times, then you pretty much own the car.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, co-leader of Te Paati Māori, has argued these reforms are about centralisation, which is in opposition to what is currently happening in Te Ao Māori as there’s a greater focus on the specific needs of iwi and hapu, and less of a focus on Māori as a monolith.

Corey Hebberd, general manager of Rangitāne o Wairau, has said: “[T]he reforms provide a safer, more equitable and improved quality of our Three Waters infrastructure. And it provides for a greater partnership approach for iwi to be able to have their role as a Treaty partner recognised.”

And you can understand why he would say that, when you consider how often local governments have done terrible things to Māori, like putting overflowing sewage treatment plants next to where they collect food or metres away from their marae.

This bill isn’t going to affect ownership, but it will give iwi more authority. Current proposals suggest half of the people who select the panel who then select the board will be Mana Whenua, and the other half will be chosen by the councils from the region.

Now this could all change, because the entities aren’t supposed to actually be operational until 2024 and a lot could change by then.

Local governments will still technically own all the resources, but it’s still a step in the right direction towards Treaty partnership, and steps are good.

Obviously because it’s a step in the right direction, that means lots of racists are opposed to it, but I don’t care.

So! Three Waters reform? In conclusion? Yeah. Pretty good.

White Man Behind A Desk is the work of satirist Robbie Nicol and playwright Finnius Teppett. See more at Patreon.com/WhiteManBehindADesk.