Could water be privatised here?

[Lilith7]

According to this, its a possibility. And a very concerning one,at that. If this lot could find a way to make us all pay to breathe, they would.


https://thestandard.org.nz/get-ready-for...rivatised/

"This week National has passed legislation through Parliament dismantling Three Waters.
I have always struggled to understand its opposition. The country’s water systems are in very poor shape. Far too many people have been poisoned. The infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes. In our major cities water and sewerage pipes that should have been replaced years ago have succumbed to old age and are collapsing at a remarkable rate. And there is currently not the faintest hope that the various water systems will be improved to make them resilient to climate change.

But somehow National and its partners persuaded many Kiwis that dealing with these existential threats was a bad thing.
The biggest source of angst and the driver of the anti 3 waters campaign was the possibility that Māori  would be given too many rights over water.
Which ignores the fact that Māori has a significant interest in water.


Even National acknowledges Iwi rights to and interests in water.
But the dogwhistle possibly Atlas funded campaigns against Three Waters worked. It was assisted by some rather expensive litigation by the Water Users Group which was fronted by Stephen Franks and Brigitte Moreton.
 I still cannot understand why she was permitted as the lawyer involved to comment repeatedly on the issue on state owned Radio New Zealand. Ultimately the litigation failed but politically the damage was done.


The Government’s reversal of three waters is the latest example of its activity in cancelling something but having nothing to replace it with.
Simeon Brown’s and National’s alternative proposal is to let Councils sort it out themselves. Essentially sink or swim and some of the smaller local authorities may be doing more sinking than swimming".

[C_T_Russell]

Thankfully not anymore now that this govt has scrapped three waters.
Three waters was opening the doors to privatization.

[king1]

Thankfully not anymore now that this govt has scrapped three waters.
Three waters was opening the doors to privatization.

The citizens of Wellington will be very thankful...

I'm not sure where this privatisation argument comes from to be honest - it's pretty clear in the legislation that ownership of assets and control of pricing is to be retained.

and the ability to contract out is from the Local Government act 2002 and  been around through successive governments

Contracting out of water services
117Contracts relating to provision of water services

(1)  Despite section 116, a water services entity may enter into a contract for any aspect of the operation of all or part of water services for a term not longer than 15 years.

(2)  If a water services entity enters into a contract under subsection (1), it must—

1. continue to be legally responsible for providing the water services; and
   
2. maintain ownership of the infrastructure and assets relating to the water services; and
   
3.  retain control over—
   

•  the pricing of water services; and
  
•  developing policy related to the delivery of water services.
  
  

(3)  This section does not prevent a water services entity from entering into a contract with 1 or more other water services entities if the purpose of the contract relates solely to water services.

Compare: 2002 No 84, s 136

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/gov...40594.html

All I can say is this government campaigned hard on undoing Labours attempts at addressing structural issues in New Zealand -  National better have some solutions by the time the next election comes around...

[Lilith7]

Thankfully not anymore now that this govt has scrapped three waters.
Three waters was opening the doors to privatization.

The citizens of Wellington will be very thankful...

I'm not sure where this privatisation argument comes from to be honest - it's pretty clear in the legislation that ownership of assets and control of pricing is to be retained.

and the ability to contract out is from the Local Government act 2002 and  been around through successive governments

Contracting out of water services
117Contracts relating to provision of water services

(1)  Despite section 116, a water services entity may enter into a contract for any aspect of the operation of all or part of water services for a term not longer than 15 years.

(2)  If a water services entity enters into a contract under subsection (1), it must—

1. continue to be legally responsible for providing the water services; and
   
2. maintain ownership of the infrastructure and assets relating to the water services; and
   
3.  retain control over—
   

•  the pricing of water services; and
  
•  developing policy related to the delivery of water services.
  
  

(3)  This section does not prevent a water services entity from entering into a contract with 1 or more other water services entities if the purpose of the contract relates solely to water services.

Compare: 2002 No 84, s 136

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/gov...40594.html

All I can say is this government campaigned hard on undoing Labours attempts at addressing structural issues in New Zealand -  National better have some solutions by the time the next election comes around...

I'm not sure they've thought about that; they seem to be hell bent on simply undoing anything done by the previous govt, which sadly isn't uncommon when a there's a new govt elected.

[C_T_Russell]

Thankfully not anymore now that this govt has scrapped three waters.
Three waters was opening the doors to privatization.

The citizens of Wellington will be very thankful...

I'm not sure where this privatisation argument comes from to be honest - it's pretty clear in the legislation that ownership of assets and control of pricing is to be retained.

and the ability to contract out is from the Local Government act 2002 and  been around through successive governments

Contracting out of water services
117Contracts relating to provision of water services

(1)  Despite section 116, a water services entity may enter into a contract for any aspect of the operation of all or part of water services for a term not longer than 15 years.

(2)  If a water services entity enters into a contract under subsection (1), it must—

1. continue to be legally responsible for providing the water services; and
   
2. maintain ownership of the infrastructure and assets relating to the water services; and
   
3.  retain control over—
   

•  the pricing of water services; and
  
•  developing policy related to the delivery of water services.
  
  

(3)  This section does not prevent a water services entity from entering into a contract with 1 or more other water services entities if the purpose of the contract relates solely to water services.

Compare: 2002 No 84, s 136

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/gov...40594.html

All I can say is this government campaigned hard on undoing Labours attempts at addressing structural issues in New Zealand -  National better have some solutions by the time the next election comes around...

The biggest issue with 3 waters was the assets were essentially taken away from council ownership and there was a provision in the clauses that meant it could be sold off if enough agreed to it.
There should have never been any provision to begin with, perhaps it is nothing to worry about, but it was enough concern for me to see that such a provision even existed.

Another issue is that some councils managed their water infrastructure well and had little to no debt.
With three waters, it would mean that those who had a good, well managed system would end up paying up more to prop up councils who managed it bad.
So if you were paying more for your water in a poorly run region, you may end up paying less, but others who paid less currently will end up paying more to prop up other regions.

Also regarding storm water, waste water etc. If you had a problem under the three waters scheme, i.e blocked storm water drain, you have to call your regional water authority which may not even be your home city. Its much better for local council to monitor and manage this.

[king1]

The citizens of Wellington will be very thankful...

I'm not sure where this privatisation argument comes from to be honest - it's pretty clear in the legislation that ownership of assets and control of pricing is to be retained.

and the ability to contract out is from the Local Government act 2002 and  been around through successive governments


All I can say is this government campaigned hard on undoing Labours attempts at addressing structural issues in New Zealand -  National better have some solutions by the time the next election comes around...

The biggest issue with 3 waters was the assets were essentially taken away from council ownership and there was a provision in the clauses that meant it could be sold off if enough agreed to it.
There should have never been any provision to begin with, perhaps it is nothing to worry about, but it was enough concern for me to see that such a provision even existed.

Another issue is that some councils managed their water infrastructure well and had little to no debt.
With three waters, it would mean that those who had a good, well managed system would end up paying up more to prop up councils who managed it bad.
So if you were paying more for your water in a poorly run region, you may end up paying less, but others who paid less currently will end up paying more to prop up other regions.

Also regarding storm water, waste water etc. If you had a problem under the three waters scheme, i.e blocked storm water drain, you have to call your regional water authority which may not even be your home city. Its much better for local council to monitor and manage this.

well the first point you make would seem to contradict the legislation I linked so I would like to see the actual evidence of that.

as for the second point, we are in the infrastructural mess we are in precisely because the existing system of authorities managing their own water systems is broken and not working, case in point Wellington...

The infrastructure of New Zealand should not be left to the whims of councils that are elected periodically, with an incentive to minimise Rates increases...

[Praktica]

Local body rates have not increased in real terms over the last century..

https://www.interest.co.nz/bonds/126521/...t-taxation

[C_T_Russell]

The biggest issue with 3 waters was the assets were essentially taken away from council ownership and there was a provision in the clauses that meant it could be sold off if enough agreed to it.
There should have never been any provision to begin with, perhaps it is nothing to worry about, but it was enough concern for me to see that such a provision even existed.

Another issue is that some councils managed their water infrastructure well and had little to no debt.
With three waters, it would mean that those who had a good, well managed system would end up paying up more to prop up councils who managed it bad.
So if you were paying more for your water in a poorly run region, you may end up paying less, but others who paid less currently will end up paying more to prop up other regions.

Also regarding storm water, waste water etc. If you had a problem under the three waters scheme, i.e blocked storm water drain, you have to call your regional water authority which may not even be your home city. Its much better for local council to monitor and manage this.

well the first point you make would seem to contradict the legislation I linked so I would like to see the actual evidence of that.

as for the second point, we are in the infrastructural mess we are in precisely because the existing system of authorities managing their own water systems is broken and not working, case in point Wellington...

The infrastructure of New Zealand should not be left to the whims of councils that are elected periodically, with an incentive to minimise Rates increases...

It was this entrenchment clause here.
Looks like labour changed it at the end of 2022 due to the backlash.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480...egislation

[king1]

well the first point you make would seem to contradict the legislation I linked so I would like to see the actual evidence of that.

as for the second point, we are in the infrastructural mess we are in precisely because the existing system of authorities managing their own water systems is broken and not working, case in point Wellington...

The infrastructure of New Zealand should not be left to the whims of councils that are elected periodically, with an incentive to minimise Rates increases...

It was this entrenchment clause here.
Looks like labour changed it at the end of 2022 due to the backlash.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480...egislation

so your biggest issue wasn't actually an issue?   removed during the readings before legislation was passed...

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Three Waters was a great idea. We need to sort out our water infrastructure, the current systems are a complete shambles.

The trouble was not the policy, but rather the way that policy was presented, and understood by all the stakeholders concerned. That was as much of a shambles as the water situation the policy was drafted to rectify. Simply undoing the last governments efforts will not fix the water issue, it is simply a PR exercise and I suspect the current leadership are well aware of that reality. And worse, have no idea or intention of actually fixing the ongoing problem, which is not going to go away...

[Praktica]

 And worse, have no idea or intention of actually fixing the ongoing problem, which is not going to go away...

No problem - the plebs will be fully occupied with anti Maori, anti vaccine, anti science and other culture war issues, tailored to the thick and stupid. They will think they have won...

[C_T_Russell]

It was this entrenchment clause here.
Looks like labour changed it at the end of 2022 due to the backlash.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480...egislation

so your biggest issue wasn't actually an issue?   removed during the readings before legislation was passed...

Well labour left it too little too late.
A bit of a PR disaster if you ask me.
Looks like the greens were at least partially responsible for the clause from what I can take from it.

"ACT leader David Seymour said the removal of the entrenchment was "a win for democracy" but "the Government's intentions remain concerning."  "This entire process has been deliberately murky and questions remain about how it even got to this point," he said in a statement.  Seymour said "the Greens and Labour have been grossly irresponsible, not realising what they are doing to New Zealand's constitutional framework while trying to fight the imaginary bogeyman of privatisation".


"Meanwhile the Greens have defended their stance.

"Requiring a 60 percent majority of Parliament, or a straight majority in a referendum, would require any future government to build political support and consensus for any winding back of public ownership. This would uphold the very strong public support for public ownership by preventing a simple majority changing the law to privatise precious water assets," Green Party local government spokesperson Eugenie Sage said in a statement.

"Parliament's Standing Orders (270) clearly provide for entrenchment and that Parliament must carry any entrenchment proposal by the same majority as in the entrenchment clause. That's what happened with the Greens amendment," she said.

The Green Party would continue to fight for strong protection of the ongoing public ownership of the three waters assets, services and infrastructure, Sage said."

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Bogeyman of privatisation? So Seymour never came across the Nestle guy and his opinion on water ownership?

Fact - the CEO of Nestle called the idea of water being a human right 'extreme'.

That's plain scary.

[king1]

Not sure what the problem is CT, your own links and quotes suggest that Labours intentions were to try and lock in the public ownership of water assets, using the entrenchment provisions. None of them were advocating for privatisation, just the opposite.

But what exactly is the issue with the entrenchment clause that would have caused/risked the privatisation of water assets? David Seymours quote about the Greens " trying to fight the imaginary bogeyman of privatisation" seems a bigger risk, he tends to suggest he was trying to shut three waters down to allow for privatisation down the track...

But I agree it was a PR disaster, certainly could have been handled better - but this was two years ago, it never made it to legislation, but probably contributed (rightly or wrongly) to labour's election defeat.

[Lilith7]

Seriously, a 'win for democracy?!'
From David Seymour...?

I have some strong doubts that he wants democracy. And I very seldom agree with Willie Jackson, but on this I think he has it right.

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2023/07/10/da...are-sepia/

"Look, I’m not saying ACT are fascist, but amputating Pacific, Ethnic, Māori, Women’s and Youth political voices ALONGSIDE the Human Rights Commission make their shirts a shade of Sepia doesn’t it?
A light chocolate? A bark?
Sepia, chocolate or Bark, whatever the shade of shirt colour, it is a brown though right?

Not over the top fascism, that takes too much effort and we are far too laid back a culture for goose stepping, but we enjoy a casual fascism in NZ.
A gun centric, public service mutilating free market level basic bitch bigotry we are talking about here right?

Amputating the political voices of Māori, Women, Youth, Pacific and Ethnic Kiwis ON TOP of killing off the Human Rights Commission ON TOP OF ankle bracelets on 11 year olds ON TOP OF allowing the gun nuts to abolish the gun registry ON TOP OF  billions into prisons ON TOP OF vast cuts to welfare ON TOP OF sacking thousands of public servants ON TOP OF vast tax cuts to the rich ON TOP OF a referendum to redefine the Treaty and force it upon Māoridom which will spark a civil war.

These are extreme policies which will cause enormous social dislocation and a level of violence that will make the Parliament Lawn protests look calm and rational.
ACT are drunk on their own sense of power and are promising ever more radical change which they intend to implement, no matter how many riots it inspires.

They are wide eyes acolytes who are believers and I don’t think the vast majority actually understand their policy platform and how dangerous it will be to implement.
You’ve all seen how useless Luxon is, there’s no way he’s going to be able to stop someone as smart as David Seymour getting everything he wants in a post election negotiation.
We will get 100% ACT policy with no filters."


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/willie-j...2T3JBOWTI/

Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson says in his opinion Act leader David Seymour - who he once described as a useless Māori - is the country’s most dangerous man, and if he gets into power will make life a misery for more than Māori.
Jackson said Seymour’s Trump-like rhetoric was anti-Māori and in an instant would wipe out decades of Māori development.
Both were involved in a fiery political debate last night in Auckland.

“I want to say to our people, be very nervous because a National-Act Government will do away with everything that is dear to us. David Seymour’s already threatened that,” Jackson told the Herald.
In his opinion: “I think he’s the most dangerous man that we’ve ever seen in New Zealand politics. He gets away with it because he’s quite articulate, well-dressed.
“This is someone who will challenge and has challenged every High Court and Supreme Court judge who’s been in place since 1987.

“He thinks they’re all wrong. He thinks every Prime Minister since ‘87 is wrong when they agree and talk about partnership between Māori and the Crown.
“He believes that’s nonsense. He is saying that there’s no partnership in the Treaty and wants the Treaty revamped and reshaped. It’s Donald Trump-type politics.”