The Democratic Deficits in the Three Waters Reforms

Dr Bryce Edwards is Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the director of the Democracy Project.

Centralisation could lead to a loss of democratic input

The current Labour Government clearly has a determination to solve national problems by centralising the management of services, reducing the devolved authority of local entities in terms of district health boards and polytechs. The water proposals are a continuation and escalation of this approach. And although there is great merit in such amalgamation, it does come at the expense of local democratic input from communities.

In last week’s Sunday Star Times editorial on the water reforms, Warwick Rasmussen worries that the Labour Government is becoming dogmatically over-reliant on the centralisation approach, warning that it’s not a cost-free fix:

“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”

– see: Centralisation a blunt political tool that should be used sparingly.

Rasmussen believes that amalgamating the water systems might come with some important negatives:

“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.”

Writing in The Press, Steven Walton reports on why local councillors are unconvinced by the reforms, including the worry about reduced local input: “Christchurch deputy mayor Andrew Turner said the reforms undermined local control and influence”, and “Councillor Sam MacDonald said he felt the Government was taking away local influence and the new entity would not be responsive to the particular needs of Christchurch” – see: Worry over lack of local influence under government water reforms.

Housing commentator Ashley Church says the water reforms will have a big impact on local lives and, despite not being a fan of the status quo, thinks the reduced local control of water could make things worse – see: Why water matters more than efforts to control house prices.

Here’s Church’s main point about the weakness of the proposals:

“Namely, a loss of local democratic control, unwieldy and illogical boundaries and, most alarmingly, the likely creation of huge, bloated, faceless bureaucracies which will almost certainly be less efficient than the bodies they replace. It’s also important to note that water is not the same as a utility like electricity where scale provides cost and delivery efficiencies. Water issues are usually quite specific to local communities and require localised solutions based on geography and a unique mix of lifestyle, commercial activity and rural production.”

Representation and governance concerns

Alongside concerns about reduced local input, is a fear by some that the new water entities are being designed so that local councils, and thereby citizens, will have little control and influence over decision-making.

In the article by Steven Walton, above, it is pointed out that for the South Island the all-powerful Regional Representative Group, which will effectively control the main water entity, will have only six representatives from the 21 councils. Christchurch Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner complains: “It is unclear how the elected council will actually be able to influence investment decisions and priorities.” However, in this case, Ngai Tahu, has expressed satisfaction with the arrangements, given that the other half on the board will be mana whenua appointees.

Similarly, the Auckland council is unhappy about how much control the city will have over the local water entity, with Mayor Phil Goff complaining that they “could have less than 40 per cent representation in the governance of a new entity, despite 92 per cent of the entity’s assets being from Auckland” – see Georgina Campbell’s Wellington mayor on the fence about water reform: ‘We can get on top of this ourselves’. Likewise, in Wellington, Mayor Andy Foster says “The model which is proposed has no local control at all. It basically says we are owners in name only.”

For some local authorities, the boundaries of the four proposed mega-entities are unsatisfactory. Some are surprised that the Wellington-dominated entity will also comprise locations as far away as Gisbourne, Blenheim, and Motueka. Meanwhile, only part of Marlborough will be part of this entity. This is apparently “to align with iwi boundaries” – see Chloe Ranford’s Three (Waters) into two won’t go, or will it?.

Thomas Coughlan explains this is part of the Government’s answer to Treaty obligations:

“The convoluted structure seems designed to ensure the Government follows through on its commitments to Maori co-governance at some level, without committing the entities to having co-governance on the entities boards – a bit of a political fudge”

– see: Nanaia Mahuta prepares for showdown with councils over water reforms.

This article can be republished under a Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0  license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project.  

Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD.