Ignore the privatisation scaremongerers

I remember the time before what socialists call the “neo-liberal” era which “sold out” the country to “rampant capitalism”. Sure I was at school, at the time when people and businesses had to plan weeks ahead to get the Post Office to install a phone line (no mobile phones then, as the Post Office hadn’t deemed that to be appropriate until 1987, even though Australia had had a limited carphone mobile service from 1981 and the UK had launched mobile telephony in 1985).

It was an era when the 100% state owned Air NZ had to get Cabinet approval to buy new airliners, and was made to buy Rolls Royce engines for its Boeing 747s, because it was thought it might improve trade prospects more generally, even though the airline had the spares and the staff training for General Electric engines (and the Board had recommended such aircraft). Such is the ways of nationalised industries.

It was also an era when phones calls beyond your local calling area (which in Wellington did not include Kapiti) cost tens of cents a minute, so a ten minute call (remember no SMS or email) to Auckland might cost several dollars. Phone calls internationally cost dollars a minute, so twice a year my grandmother would talk to her sister in Scotland, for birthdays, for around 10 minutes. Those calls cost $30-$40, and it wasn’t because of technology, it was because the Post Office used money from phone calls to cross subsidise its unprofitable postal monopoly. Then there was the Post Office Savings Bank, a government bank that at a time of double digit inflation had children’s “savings” accounts paying 2% interest. Effectively a scheme for the state to steal savings from children, but hey it wasn’t privatised nor “foreign-owned” (strange how supposedly “anti-racist” socialists are so agitated about foreigners when they own businesses they use), so it was great - the socialists got kids' money to spend on "the People" (which is of course what they always say).

Wellingtonians 40 plus might remember the Wellington domestic terminal, later the Air NZ domestic terminal, which on a windy wet day would leak, with the lino floor flooded, being drafty with not enough seats for people waiting for flights. Until (foreign and local capitalist owned) Ansett NZ was allowed to fly domestically, all jet flights were boarded through steps in the wintery Wellington windy rain. The Government and Wellington City Council argued over decades about who should pay for a new one. They would also remember Wellington City Transport, which was 100% owned by the City Council and subsidised by ratepayers, so that on Sunday evenings hardly any buses ran at all, all of the routes terminated in the city centre (needed more buses and drivers for that, and the Tramways Union would hold the city to ransom if it didn’t get what it wanted). New buses required the Council to order them, and as a result the fleet would be on its last legs before new vehicles would get ordered. 30 year old diesel buses would be operating (the economic life of a diesel bus is around 15 years) and of course Wellington’s trolley bus infrastructure would be patched up for decades.

None of this is reflected on by Max Rashbrooke in the Spinoff. He wrote a piece last week that followed on from the rather awkward set of comments between David Seymour, Chris Luxon and Nicola Willis which indicated various interest in looking at further privatisation, but unfortunately Rashbrooke didn’t demonstrate a great deal of depth in thinking. Most of it was parroting the claims and slogans of former union economist Bill Rosenberg, and high level papers written overseas by leftwing researchers.  

I couldn't resist, it was so full of nonsense, it deserves a response:

- “Privatised TranzRail had an appalling safety record, its staff dying at work at eight times the national average. And while cutting maintenance to a level Rosenberg labelled “abysmal”” What was the safety record before privatisation, before SOE status, before corporatisation (before there was safety regulation of rail)? Rosenberg, a former CTU economist bases the maintenance level on “what”? Bear in mind that in 1984 Booz Allen reported on how the rail network had been over-maintained in places, but also how 

- “Fay Richwhite and their fellow owners took out at least $370m in profits from a firm for which they had paid just $328m”. Dividends over a 12 year period, but of course taxpayers have never taken a dividend from Kiwirail or NZRC, ever. Socialists need to decide if the state owning trading enterprises is to make money from them for “the People”, or for them to be moneypits for the “Public Good”, but that isn’t clear.  Truth is most are primarily commercial but they might want certain services delivered at taxpayer expense, but this doesn’t require entire operations to be operated Soviet style.

- “Helen Clark’s Labour government was then forced to repurchase the railways, creating KiwiRail as we now know it. The whole episode cost the state around $4bn, according to then business commentator Brian Gaynor”. Nobody was forced to repurchase it, in fact there were three transactions from buying the Auckland track for $81m (Treasury valued it at $20m), buying the network and then buying the whole business. If nothing had happened, it still would exist, it just would have seen a series of lines close that carry little traffic, and the state has poured much more into Kiwirail since.  For what end though?

- “Profits flowing offshore to wealthy interests rather than ordinary New Zealanders” What profits? Kiwirail has never generated a dividend, and besides “ordinary New Zealanders” wouldn’t get it, it would go to the Minister of Finance to wash in with other spending.

- “The maddest examples have come when monopolies – water, rail – have been sold to private firms, even though competition is the only thing that makes markets work” Rail isn’t a monopoly, and in NZ water hasn’t been privatised (and corporatisation was opposed by economists like Rosenberg in the 1990s, see the resistance of the Alliance to the creation of Watercare Services, and demonstrates the utter failure of the socialist model of democratic control of the provision of services.  

- “A private monopoly is the worst of both worlds: no competition-based incentives to improve, and no public-good ethos pushing the organisation to look out for citizens’ interests”. Do tell us about this public-good ethos, the one that saw the Post Office take weeks to install phone lines, that gouged consumers for toll calls, that saw rampant theft of freight on the railways as a monopoly government department (it had a statutory monopoly until 1983 on long haul freight), the Post Office Savings Bank that gave kids 2% interest on savings accounts when inflation was in double digits. Please!

- “in the UK, privatised railways have been such a disaster – massively increasing costs with no corresponding rise in quality”. If you think rail travel in the UK is no different in quality today compared to the era of British Rail you need help. By any measure, frequency, number of routes, reliability, speed and capacity, and indeed patronage (which has grown to record level turning round decades of patronage decline), it is a remarkable transformation. Yes subsidies have spiralled as well, but it’s overly simplistic to think the UK has a private rail system now, as Network Rail effectively renationalised the network over 20 years ago, and most services are franchised (with the franchisees either paying to operate services on routes that are commercially viable, or pay to operate those that are not). Furthermore, rail freight volumes have increased 80% since 1983, hardly a failure if a key goal is to shift more freight off of congested roads. Socialists (mainly the unions that can’t shut down the entire system with a strike anymore) say privatisation didn’t cause the rise in patronage, but if privatisation “harmed” services, wouldn’t people have just abandoned rail in favour of buses and driving? Well of course they didn’t.  The system has been highly flawed, that’s for sure, mainly because it is highly politicised and Train Operating Companies have been poorly incentivised to control costs (because their main client isn’t their customers but the state), but that’s an argument for less state control, not renationalisation.  As usual, it's much more complex than simple slogans

- "Even worse has been the privatisation of British water services, whereby firms have extracted tens of billions of pounds in shareholder dividends, hiked water fees and discharged large amounts of effluent into local waterways." Yet DIA’s own report on the Three Waters reforms noted the performance of English water companies exceeded that of any in New Zealand, and Scottish Water. A huge amount of investment has gone into renewing water infrastructure in England, in fact OfWat requires it, and regulates water user fees. New Zealand HAS the model the UK had before privatisation and it’s an abject failure. NZ has local democratic control of the water and waste water system, and it is falling apart in many centres. It doesn’t generate dividends, it charges people based on the value of their property, not what they use, and effluent gets discharged into waterways regularly.  We have socialist water and it doesn’t work. 

- "Privatised bus companies, the OECD concluded, are cheaper than public ones only because they cut wages." This is simply false. The OECD did not conclude that, the link is to a report on a roundtable discussion involving case studies in four countries, three in Europe, plus the USA (which has few privatised urban bus services). It is not an official report from the OECD. EVEN then it said that private operators can be more innovative than public ones. The idea you can compare the performance of the Yellow Bus Company in Auckland in the 90s (let alone the ARA), or Wellington City Transport in the 1980s to their equivalents today is extraordinary.  When bus services were moved into the contracting model, there were savings of around 15-20% which enabled more routes and frequencies to be offered, but it did stop the Tramways Union from being able to shut down an entire bus network when it didn’t get what it wanted.  

- "Even when three of them were fully state-owned, the “gentailers” that supply our electricity were able to operate rather like a cartel, generating excess profits and freezing out potential competitors." Wait what? So it ISN’T state ownership you oppose, it is running trading enterprises as “enterprises”. So you don’t want the state to make dividends from its businesses?  Well we did the socialist model before, for decades. It saw massive investment in generating capacity (politicians liked power stations then), but let the local distribution network fall apart (politicians don’t like charging people for what they use), a bit like water.  Were they operating as a cartel? Well shouldn’t the Commerce Commission be dealing with that, in which case, maybe this claim of it being a cartel (which is serious), is actually not true? Maybe if they were all fully private, they could be properly subject to scrutiny because politicians wouldn’t be worried about loss of dividends.  In fact there may be a case for structural separation of generation from retail, but that's about ownership.  Not a lot of coherence in the issue here is there?

- US healthcare – not voucher-based, admittedly, but the nearest thing the developed world has to a private health system – is a catastrophe. It’s not the nearest thing the developed world has to a private health system, as there are umpteen other examples. Nobody, literally nobody advocating for more market-oriented healthcare thinks the over-regulated, highly subsidised US model (Medicare and Medicaid are uncapped liabilities to US taxpayers) is a model for anyone to follow, but it doesn’t stop socialists from the Anglosphere blanking out Switzerland, France, Singapore or the Netherlands. Australia’s system is a mixed model, but that doesn’t fit the narrative.

After all of this selective agitprop (yes education vouchers “fail” but let’s not mention Sweden which to this day maintains one of the most open market education systems in the world, but that doesn’t fit either), we get the philosophy:

There is a basic philosophical issue: public services – health, education – are things people deserve as of right, as a basic entitlement of citizenship. They are not the equivalent of buying, say, another item of clothing, and treating them as mere consumer goods risks degrading their deep importance.

Hold on, most of this article focuses on railways, then water, and talks about electricity, then ends with health and education.  Is the claim that the state has to provide everything that is a “basic entitlement of citizenship”? Should the state own all housing? Should the farms be state owned and all food supplied by state shops (after all food is MORE important than health and education, because most can last months or years without health and education, nobody can last more than weeks without food)?  The sneering comment that “treating them as mere consumer goods” says a lot about attitudes, that when the public are allowed to choose it is “degrading”. Really?

If, as is often the case, privatisation means charging for something once paid out of taxes, it is likely to have a harmful effect on poorer households.  Why? Because poorer households use the most electricity, rail freight or water? Of course they don’t, but is the argument here that everything people need should be free at the point of use, but that half the population should pay taxes so the others don’t?  We can see what “free” water has done to demand for it, and the infrastructure. We see it with roads everyday where consumers aren’t exposed directly to the costs of what they use, with the result of queuing. Public health systems are all about queuing after all, socialists seem to think that is fair, as long as the workers get paid well, the workers not in those systems should be grateful “is isn’t ‘Merica”!

You see the problem is, the common people are stupid and ignorant, whereas public servants, producer unions (especially those run by people paid much more than the average wage) and politicians are enlightened, capable and benevolent…

People don’t generally know what healthcare they need; in education, research suggests “competition” between schools is often driven either by parents making calls based on external factors like uniforms, or by prejudiced views about keeping their kids away from certain other children.  

Well just give them what you think they deserve, parents are incompetent clearly. The state should probably feed kids too (already started with that). Parents must make lots of bad calls too, so maybe the state should buy groceries, buy clothes, maybe run activities for the children to keep fit and socialise, maybe ensure they don’t have “prejudiced views”, maybe build a sense of community. Maybe we can call them Brigades, give them uniforms. Maybe they can help identify grownups who express “hateful and harmful” views. You can see where this attitude that parents know least can head, but it is exactly the arrogance of people who think because some parents make poor choices, none should be allowed to. 

I could go on, there is a misconstruing of how Telecom performed in the 1990s (which from a consumer point of view saw prices plummet across almost all services, essentially enabling people to communicate across the country and internationally affordably for the first time). 

The only interesting part of the article is the claim that if only the public could be “involved” in the decision-making of state owned organisations they could be more responsive.  This is quaint but delusional.  Most people have the time to work, look after their families and then spend quality time enjoying themselves. A small, but vocal minority get involved in activism and inevitably those who will shout the most and get involved the most will be those with spare time or motivation, either because of their political ideology or in many cases simply having time because they are retired or not working. The citing of the “successful German model” for electricity companies is laughable given some of the highest electricity prices for consumers in the EU. If that's success I'd stick with the status quo thank you very much.

It ends with this “We could also entrust frontline public servants with more responsibility, putting them in charge of locating efficiencies and potential innovations” Sure, because public servants are well known to be at the frontline of identifying the most efficient ways of doing things, and innovating with technology and service delivery, that’s why they have jobs they rarely can lose, and don’t get paid based on performance. It's naive at best.

I get that socialists hate private enterprise at worst or are highly sceptical of it. What I don’t get are the absolutely contorted contradictions of, on the one hand hating private enterprise making a lot of money from former state enterprises, and then not wanting the state to make money from them (but rather for taxpayers to subsidise them, for no clear aim other than to make sure people don’t pay for what they use).  I absolutely don’t understand how intelligent people who purport to be interested in public policy outcomes parrot agitprop slogans from trade unions.  What is the point of the state owning Kiwirail? Is it to get more freight on rail and off of roads? If so, is that the best way to do it?  None of this is clear.  What is the point of the state owning a power company? To make it cheaper for some consumers? To reduce emissions (which will make it more expensive for someone)?  Nobody knows.

Socialists have successfully scaremongered about privatisation in NZ for decades. This scaremongering stopped water getting reformed in the 1990s outside Auckland, and has stopped serious reform of ACC, and making the electricity market more competitive (by the state not having a stake in generation and retail). It’s largely banal slogans pushed by Marxists with a strong vibe of xenophobia, and it deserves to remain back in the 1990s with the Alliance.

POSTSCRIPT: By the way, I am not in favour of privatising prisons. The state has a core function to protect law and order, and to protect citizens from the initiation of violence by individuals and state.  Politicians and public servants should be held accountable for the success and failure of managing them, and with the monopoly of the legal power to incarcerate people being quite unique, passing that responsibility to a business - regardless of efficiency - dilutes that accountability.  

Is National's proposed water reform enough?

I've been critical of the Labour Government's Three Waters' proposals, primarily because of the bizarre excessive centralisation, the opaque accountability and the lack of any serious measures to link the provision of water services to consumers. The co-governance element has little value and is only an inching forward of a ideological agenda to change public sector governance from one monopolised by liberal democratically elected politicians to one shared with appointed tribal elites.  It is the wrong solution to the right problem.  Besides, it was the hard-left, in the Alliance, Greens and the post-Douglas Labour Party that stopped water reform in the 1990s, so why trust them now?

If it were up to me I WOULD take water off of local government, I'd vest it in companies, owned directly by ratepayers, required to make a profit and transition income away from rates, towards user fees (even if it is a flat fee).  The bogeyman of privatisation, so carefully cultivated in the 1990s, and spread through the education system and much of the media is so stultifying that even ACT is quiet on it, but I think water SHOULD be privatised by handing it to property owners.  Inevitably these companies would merge and acquire one another, going from around 60 to around 10 or fewer, but that should be led by the market, not by Cabinet directed by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and its consultants. For all of the best will in the world, the odds they know what the optimum structure of the water industry should be, are remote. 

It's fair to say the two biggest reasons people are opposed to Three Water are co-governance and loss of local control. 

Regardless of the various theories behind what people think co-governance is, the fundamental point is that it introduces Iwi appointments of half of the members of a selection panel, which itself selects the Board members for the four water entities (which have boundaries that appear to look like they suit some Iwi boundaries, rather than the structure for the water industry).  There is a point that there is traditional Mana Whenua governance of waterways, but fresh, waste and stormwater infrastructure is not about that.  It is quite different to have power over the use of waterways that might feed a water treatment/reticulation system, or may receive waste/stormwater, where there is a genuine interest in the use of the resource (and discharge into it) and the infrastructure feeding it. Indeed I think there is LESS accountability under co-governance, as it is easier for Mana Whenua to hold water entities to account if they aren't part of the management of them.

The loss of local control I care relatively little about. Local government has in so many cases demonstrated that it is incapable of taking a long-term view of water infrastructure, and certainly is uninterested in concepts like user-pays, asset management and other ideas that, I suspect for too many local politicians, are either seen as a "neo-liberal free market" conspiracy, or something confusing to rip off ratepayers. 

So National has proposed the following:

Councils (TAs and unitary authorities of course) will need to deliver a plan for how they will transition their water services to a new model that meets water quality and infrastructure investment rules, while being financially sustainable in the long-term.  The Minister of Local Government will approve such entities.

It essentially means that structural reform will be led by local government, not the DIA and Cabinet, and it gives local government flexibility to determine how best to set up institutional arrangements that will be financially sustainable in the long-term.  It seems difficult to see how this can be achieved without being entities that are politically at arms-length, that are guaranteed revenue from either user fees or a proxy for user fees (hypothecated water rates for example, particularly for stormwater services).  Commercial Council Controlled Organisations may be obvious, but it seems likely that Councils will need to cluster together to be viable.  Central Hawke's Bay, Hastings, Napier and Wairoa have talked of this, but I suspect there needs to be a lot more of that, perhaps no more than four such entities in the South Island and eight in the North Island.

Finally, there is provision for the Minister to step in if Councils are slow in providing viable proposals, which seems appropriate, although you might wonder what happens if a Council that wants to merge its services with others that don't want it.  It has potential to get messy, but options can be developed for this.

Supporting the Water Quality Regulator to exclusively target water quality. It will also cover wastewater and stormwater, with a goal to reduce or eliminate contamination of local beaches and waterways.

It isn't unreasonable to have oversight of drinking water quality, but the inclusion of waste and stormwater is odd, as this is a function of regional councils. Should regional councils lose this function?  If not, will the regulator cover others who discharge waste into waterways?  If regional councils are to retain responsibility for waterways and water catchment, then shouldn't they be expected to perform these functions, and if not, why should they have these functions?  It seems overkill.  The Water Quality Regulator should best just focus on water quality, but it also needs to be moderated itself, so it doesn't seek standards that are excessive.  There are also questions about how it will operate in relation to the water entities.

National will establish a new, independent Water Infrastructure Regulator within the Commerce Commission to work alongside the existing Water Quality Regulator (Taumata Arowai). Water services will be regulated under Part 4 of the Commerce Act, alongside other essential infrastructure such as electricity lines.

This is economic regulation and is effectively a way of ensuring oversight of the new water entities not overcharging or over/under spending on water infrastructure.  It is encouraging to treat them like electricity lines companies, although a lot of work is needed to establish the value of the regulatory base of those assets.  It seems odd that it would report to the Minister of Local Government, it would be more appropriate to report to a Minister of Infrastructure (who also looks after energy and communications).  

BUT..

National is terrified of the p. word. 

The public ownership of water is not up for debate. Councils will not be able to propose water service models that involve privatisation. National’s plan is to return water assets to their rightful owners: the local communities who paid for them. We want local, public control and ownership of water assets, and that’s what this plan will deliver.

Even Rob Muldoon once considered selling minority shareholdings in Air New Zealand.  This is a pathetic surrender to left-wing scaremongering.  What is actually wrong if one or more Councils say they want private capital to invest in their water infrastructure, in a corporate model that pays dividends?  This would access new capital, and with an economic regulator there is no risk of any form of "profiteering" that Marxists claim would occur under this?  Have a backbone why wont you?  National did, after all, part privatise electricity generation and retail companies, why be scared, or is it up to ACT to propose allowing this?

Finally, what about user pays vs. rates?

The policy essentially leaves this open, so it could be user fees or could be rates based, but rates would need to be hypothecated. The only issue is that if Councils choose to go the user pays path, should there not be means to regulate Council rates downwards so they don't use it as a chance to maintain rates levels as well as user pays?  Why should only water entities have fees regulated, when Councils should have rates regulated more generally?

Conclusion

The proposal has merits, in fact it IS arguably enough. Just.  It lays the groundwork for water being treated as a utility, a service for consumers, and it is difficult to see how the entities that Councils propose can be viable for borrowing large amounts of capital if they are NOT commercial in some form (even in the form of consumer trusts), and it would seem easier to deliver long-term financial sustainability if there is user pays rather than rates (which are, after all, still Council determined).  However, I can imagine it might be necessary to be heavy-handed in making Councils set up entities that will be able to borrow and manage the enormous infrastructural uplift required. It also seems unlikely that central government can avoid putting significant amounts of taxpayers' money into uplifting the infrastructure deficit, but only on a one-off basis.  I suspect the end point in a few years will be around a dozen water companies. 

The fear of privatisation is pathetic, weak and disappointing, when there should be no reason to not argue for the right of local authorities to choose privatisation if they wish.  I know it's there to fend off the even more pathetic, scaremongering hysteria from the left, which will be amplified by idiotic leftwing journalists, but if you believe in local empowerment (!) then let it include the private sector. After all, most of the country's electricity lines companies and all telecommunications are delivered by the private sector, how is the party of business so terrified of it?

Still is it better than Three Waters? Yes, it is.  It has at least some requirements around performance, and oversight. It gives Councils a short time to get their act together to set up entities that will meet water quality requirements, and infrastructure investment requirements.  It is less centralised, at first, and offers more opportunity for some innovation locally, and ultimately both central government regulators will direct the water entities to deliver.

Sure it isn't what I would do, but it has the potential to get not too far away from what would be a good model for the water sector.  

The horrors of water privatisation are largely imaginary hysterics in the heads of leftwing politicians

What has been the biggest farce of the attempt to entrench an anti-privatisation clause in Three Waters legislation? 

The attempt by the Greens to entrench their policies in Parliament is not necessarily surprising for a party that regards private property, enterprise and individuals with scepticism, but state property, state enterprise and public servants with benign intent.  Eugenie Sage is hardly the sharpest knife in the kitchen from the Green caucus either.

Jacinda Ardern's claim to be ignorant of the proposal is also farcical. On the one hand is seems difficult to believe that one of the country's most centralising governments doesn't have a handle on the detail of policy of one of its most controversial proposals. On the other hand, if she doesn't then why not?

What virtually NO-one in the media has asked (certainly not RNZ), is why the fear of privatising water? 

You see it is precisely because of hysteria about water privatisation that New Zealand's fresh and waste water infrastructure was not substantively reformed (outside Auckland with Watercare Services) in the 1990s, and that hysteria was largely fuelled by the likes of the Greens in the form of the Alliance. The Alliance, along with the then "Water Pressure Group" (led by the completely loopy, and now late, Penny Bright) that painted a picture of doom and gloom from supplying water with user fees, in a commercial structure, that saw Auckland being the beginning and end of water reform.

It is thanks to muddled-headed Marxists like Eugenie Sage that water remained the most unreformed infrastructure sector, leaving it in the idealised world of "local democracy", "local empowerment" and of course largely staying far away from people paying for what they use, but rather taxing everyone so the biggest users of water (typically businesses) get subsidised by the smallest users (typically people living on their own). That's socialism for you.

Yet what does privatisation of water look like?  DIA's own report called "Transforming the system for delivering three waters services - The case for change and summary of proposals - June 2021" has a handy chart depicting the relative performance of ten English water companies, with government owned water companies in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and New Zealand council owned water providers. 

All of the private water companies outperform the others across a range of measures regarding customer service, and the conclusion of the report is:

• New Zealand has a long way to go, to catch up with the performance of more mature systems overseas

• We are at a starting position similar to Scottish Water, before the Scottish reforms. In the last two decades, Scottish Water has been able to close the performance gap and is now among the top-performing water services providers in the United Kingdom.

In other words, not only are private water companies in England performing better than the New Zealand council owned examples, but they have been outperforming Scottish Water - which has been the pin-up case study for the Ardern Government.

So let's be very clear.

Privatisation of water is not something to be scared of, in fact had it happened 30 years ago (not that it was even on the agenda) then there wouldn't be an infrastructure deficit in the billions for water.  Rates would be lower, yes you'd be paying a bill for water, but if it had followed the English model, there would be a water sector regulator capping the rate at which water prices could be increased, and ensuring that the natural monopoly water and sewerage companies had to meet key service standards.

Even the Government's own report acknowledges that it is PRIVATE water companies that perform well.

So what's actually wrong with private companies providing water infrastructure and services?

Why wont any Opposition MPs say there are benefits from letting the private sector take over?

Why do hysterical leftwing lightweights dominate this narrative and why do journalists never challenge it? (I mean it can't be because two of the major broadcasters are state owned can it?)

Three Waters: The wrong solution to the right problem...

I've already written about what the problem is and what is wrong about the Three Waters proposals and what an alternative could be.  So let's be brief here...

There is a major problem with the status quo

The records of territorial authorities in managing fresh, waste and stormwater infrastructure vary wildly, and some are absolutely dire. People have died as a result, and annually thousands get sick.  Anyone who says the status quo is ok is kidding themselves.

Local authority democratic management of the Three Waters is democratic socialism at work notice the Greens are opposed to Three Waters because it challenges their own philosophical point of view.  This is not a model anyone who believes in capitalism, free enterprise, individual rights, user pays and less government should ever support. So National and ACT supporting winding back the reforms is one thing, but it is pure political opportunism to not suggest that there needs to be fundamental reform.

ACT after all was once founded by some of the greatest reformers in New Zealand's history, but that seems to have been forgotten in favour of tinkering which only has merits around the edges.

In the 1970s and 1980s, electricity blackouts were far more common, primarily because the incentives and governance around local authority politically controlled power retailers and distributors, receiving power from a central government politically controlled generator and grid operator, were appalling. Gold plating in some places, underinvestment in others, with undercharging of residential consumers, overcharging of commercial consumers.  That's democratic control of the means of production, distribution and supply, and it's a failure. Chronic underinvestment, lack of innovation, service breakdowns and no serious accountability. 

This is in spite of Labour giving us in 2002 the Power of General Competence for local government in the Local Government Act 2002, which gave local government to pursue any activity to advance the social, economic, environmental and cultural "well-being" of their community. That statist mumbo-jumbo encouraged local government to take the eye off of core infrastructure, and engage in whatever they liked that they thought was good for everyone. It is hardly a surprise that water wasn't that sexy to politicians who were empowered to get involved in any sector they saw fit.

The Clark and Key Government's effectively endorsed the status quo.  The current system is a FAILURE of the philosophy of this government, that political control of infrastructure and funding services through taxation, not user fees, and running services based on bureaucratic and political incentives, not commercial, is preferable to the much-hated model of free enterprise, private investment and capitalism.

You're absolutely deluded if you think there is real accountability in a local authority politicians risking being voted out because the sewers are broken.  After all they are ALL responsible, and ALL pass the buck either to officials or central government for not giving them more of other people's money. By and large, many local politicians are statists more often than not they distrust markets, distrust the private sector and don't like losing control. It is not surprising that in some cases the lack of water infrastructure hold up property development, because far too many local politicians want to allocate infrastructure through central planning funded by taxes, not commercial incentives funded by user fees.

Water should not be subject to political control from either local or central government.

So what about the Iwi involvement in governance?

So why is Minister Mahuta and the Ardern Government looking to turn water on its head, to take it off of local government (in practice) and to share governance with Mana Whenua? Presumably because she sees this as a way of strengthening the application of the Government's philosophy around the constitutional arrangements of the country, by implementing the concept of Te Tiriti partnership in governance of a sector of the economy, even if it doesn't involve any assets owned by Mana Whenua. 

Obviously water in rivers, lakes, harbours and other waterways are deemed a taonga, but these do not define water infrastructure assets. Those assets affect waterways, in particular either drawing from them or discharging into them, but that's a reason why Mana Whenua should absolutely NOT control Three Waters, but have a role in applying their property rights up against water service providers.

There is an obvious role for any entities in the water sector to consult and engage with Mana Whenua regarding the use of public waterways, and discharges into them. Indeed, the idea of Mana Whenua having ownership rights on at least some such waterways that need to be respected by water entities is entirely consistent with private property rights and a free market economy.  However, to blur this by giving them a say in governance of the water entities blurs this, and weakens accountability regarding outcomes over waterways. Although Peter Cresswell is right to consider providing some Mana Whenua control as a form of privatisation, it is a fiction because they can neither sell it, nor hold any financial accountability for failure (nor benefit from success). Mana Whenua are obviously consumers of water infrastructure as most everyone else is (whether as individuals consuming water and waste water services, or property owners protected by stormwater infrastructure). 

There is no more reason to include Mana Whenua in governance here than in other sectors of the economy. Either be transparent about it, set up companies and hand over shares (and let them get dividends and pay tax on that income), or just ensure the consultation and engagement process obligations exist for the new entities.  It is difficult to see what is added by including them in an opaque governance process other than the potential for cronyism, indecision and blurring of interests between consumers, property owners, custodians of waterways and the provision of infrastructure distinct from those waterways. The irony is that this Government has pushed and pressured local authorities to introduce separate ethnically defined Maori wards for local government, but is now seeking to dilute local authority power, and so the scope of influence of those elected to such wards. It would be much more effective to include Mana Whenua participation with the regulator, as this ought to be the key entity monitoring and enforcing performance around drinking water quality and discharges from waste and stormwater. Good public policy avoids conflicts of interest, so it is much better if Mana Whenua do not have a governance role in water assets, but rather a regulatory role as property custodians of waterways.

This appears to be an opportunistic move by Mahuta to appease the Maori caucus and sideswipe Te Pati Maori (or even ingratiate herself with it, if Labour needs Te Pati Maori support after the next election, which is an entirely plausible scenario).  

It's a poor governance model for water and for Maori, as consumers of water services, but also custodians of waterways.

Success depends on getting the right level of investment and in ending taxpayer funding of water infrastructure

Is there a case for reform? Sure there is.  In fact it is palpable.

So reform of water is needed, the current model is broken, and reform ought to take water away from being funded by ratepayers and be funded by consumer, through user pays of some form of another.  Matt Burgess from the NZ Initiative is right that a mix of commercial incentives and user pays are necessary to achieve the purported goals of the reforms.  He further notes in NZ Herald (paywall) how local authorities have used the inability to pay for water infrastructure as a reason to delay or oppose property development, harming housing supply. 

However, Labour politicians have for years been distancing themselves from successful reforms their predecessors implemented in other sectors that have never been seriously revisited, such as in electricity.  The bogeys of unpopular privatisations from the 1990s haunt the 2020s, even though this isn't privatisation, there is great fear there could be privatisation.

However, there are two approaches to this.  One is simpler, just leave it up to local authorities to decide whether or not to own shares (Three Waters "rules out" shares!) in water companies, or to divest themselves of it to use in other sectors.  This has happened with ports, airports and bus companies.

I much prefer issuing shares to both water consumers of fresh and waste water (those who own property or rent properties they live in) and property owners (for stormwater), and let them decide whether the public wants to own water infrastructure.

This is a complete anathema to Labour, the Greens and doesn't even seem to warm the cockles of much of the National Party - genuine PUBLIC ownership by giving the public shares. Shares in companies that charge for the use of their infrastructure, of both private and government landowners (Councils will have to pay for stormwater infrastructure protecting their roads, for example).  

I believe the public would embrace being given shares in these companies. Now they will need to raise capital, but they will be in a much better position to do this with the powers to borrow, powers to directly charge for water infrastructure and to raise capital in markets.

Watercare Services are already partway there, but the 2002 Local Government Act diluted the provisions for Local Authority Trading Enterprises, hindering their ability to borrow against income.  Watercare services could fairly easily be converted into the shareholder model.

We've been here before - with roads - and Labour abandoned reform initiated by National, to take control of local roads off of local authorities.

The case for reform of water has parallels to the case for reform of local roads that the Shipley Government tried to implement up till 1999.  

The Shipley Government had a proposal called Better Transport Better Roads which sought to take local roads off of territorial authorities and placed them into half a dozen or so roads companies.  The difference being that central government was looking to put its own roads (the State Highways) into a roads company too.  The roads companies would be required to deliver high standards of service to road user, and would be fully funded from road user fees (road user charges and fuel tax), but empowered to let road users choose between paying road user taxes or paying them directly.

A major flaw of the proposal was that it wouldn't regulate rates down after removing rates funding of roads, but you can see the parallels with the Three Waters proposal.  The merits were that National saw that councils in many cases didn't adequately fund local roads, and that there was too much diversion of council attention onto politically sexy activities (stadiums, conference centres, art works and sports events), moreover it wanted to move to a model of full user pays - and that roads ran as businesses, with the ability to borrow and directly charge road users, would do that.

Local authorities HATED it, SO DID LABOUR. Labour complained that it was taking away local democratic control and would be a precursor to privatisation.  Of course roads companies weren't going to be sharing governance with Mana Whenua either.

This is a chance for worthwhile reform that engages the public and gets incentives right

But the Ardern Government has been dishonest with local government. It consulted, and didn't like the response it got, so it is doing what it wants anyway. Minister Mahuta claimed on TV that 30 options were looked at, but only a handful are depicted in the consultation documents. 

It is also completely uninterested in letting the allocation of resources and investment be determined by user preferences and market forces.  Water reform in the UK has been extraordinarily successful, with similar issues to New Zealand, through commercialisation and privatisation. It's pure blinkered ideology to ignore that, but Labour need not privatise water to get many of the benefits of a commercial model that applies user pays.

Three Waters reforms as they stand risk creating entities with poor incentives for efficiency, poor incentives for high quality customer service and poor incentives to avoid gold-plating or green-plating investment from funding provided by central government. There will be poor incentives for users to use water more wisely, and without generating a return on capital little indication as to what are the most efficient use of resources across the sector.

However, given the grotesque level of malinvestment being directed into other sectors (see Kiwirail), it's hardly surprising that the Government doesn't really understand the merits of stepping back and letting a sector be professionalised away from political and bureaucratic control of investment.

So what's an alternative to the Three Waters Reform?

I’ve already written critically of the Three Waters reforms in a polemical way.  It's rather curious that Nanaia Mahuta is so committed to these reforms given she has no record in her political career of ever having passionate views about structural reforms of any sectors of the economy.  You wouldn't know what she thinks about energy, transport or communications sectors, so why water? Surely it can't be because of the transfer of some power to Iwi under the new mega-water "entities"? 

Regardless of her motivations, I think the problem definition is largely correct.  The status quo has failed appallingly, and that status quo is combination of leftwing ideology about the "power of general competence" of local government (and it being committed to "economic, social, environmental and cultural wellbeing") and rightwing ideology about supporting localisation of power (although that power still lies with politicians, apparently local politicians that fewer people vote for are more accountable than MPs).  

Yet it is abundantly clear that the options assessed (at least from the public documents) were remarkably narrow minded, apparently only considering:

• Sector-led reform: This would be returning to the philosophy of the “power of general competence” that local government is capable of reforming itself to address the problems listed. This seems unlikely and is in effect a “status quo” option.

• National Three Waters Fund:  This option is frankly bizarre. It is touted as being similar to the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF), yet there are so few useful parallels. The NLTF is funded mostly from user fees on motorised road users, through fuel tax and road user charges.  There are NO centrally collected user fees on water users, and many local authorities don’t even impose user fees at all. Furthermore, the NLTF fully funds the State Highway Network, which is central-government owned and operated, there is no equivalent in water.  This looks like a brain fart from some politician.

• Regulatory reform only: This has its merits, if only because there is poor oversight of what territorial authorities do with water already, but existing governance structures range widely from being promising (Watercare Services) to being very poor. This is unlikely to be enough.  

It might be too much for me to expect a Labour Government to have assessed privatisation, even if it dismissed it on grounds of being contrary to the policies and principles of the Labour Party, but it should have been included to see what the benefits and risks would be.

So assuming privatisation per se would fall on deaf ears, here’s my quick and dirty alternative. Quite simply it is to commercialise and transfer control of water assets to ratepayer or consumer owned companies, those entities would carry the local authority debt associated with those assets. My proposal is:

1. A water sector regulator would be set up, which in association with the Commerce Commission, would oversee the water entities, particularly the transition of the reform, but also ensure that these monopolies don’t abuse their position, and are accountable for the effects of failure on consumers and property owners.  Yes yes, I would MUCH prefer some consumer association that would test water quality and seek transparency in these entities, but that's too much to hope for.  A regulator is likely to be necessary at least for the first five years, particularly to enforce some basic standards of drinking water.

2. All territorial authorities would be required to transfer fresh, waste and stormwater assets into water companies.  This would also include debt associated with those assets (which would have to be agreed with the Commerce Commission, to stop local authorities transferring unreasonable levels of debt to the new entities). These companies would be at arms-length control from territorial authorities, with independent boards prohibited from taking direction from councillors as to specific capital spending decisions. The companies would be required to make a return on capital and pay taxes. This would help avoid both over and underspending on infrastructure and remove politics from decisions around water infrastructure. The companies would be required to provide services to end users and to make a profit. They would be allowed to merge and consolidate as they see fit, and if the efficiencies claimed are real (and some no doubt are), this will become abundantly clear as being the right choice. Those that lag and perform 

3. The water companies would have all shares initially owned by the territorial authorities, but within twelve months shares would be transferred either to ratepayers with property serviced by their networks (with some proportionality by those served to different degrees by the three networks) or to consumers (which in some cases is ratepayers at least for stormwater). These shares would be tradeable, although there could be limits on foreign ownership if desired. However, the companies would essentially by owned directly by the public, rather than by local authorities. It would leave accountability at the lowest possible level, those who have paid for it and who own it. It’s actual people power.  I am ambivalent about whether ratepayers or consumers gain shares, and tend to prefer consumers (i.e. those who will be responsible for water bills) take fresh/waste water shares and ratepayers stormwater shares.

4. Water companies would be required to move towards full user pays and rates would be regulated downward. This will include but may not require water metering. Metering is appropriate for fresh and wastewater, but not stormwater, so the water companies would levy consumers for fresh and wastewater (not necessarily property owners), but property owners for stormwater. The charges would be subject to oversight from the Commerce Commission initially to ensure water companies weren’t seeking to gouge consumers. However, EQUALLY important is that territorial authority rates that have been used to pay for any of the three waters are regulated down. That regulation should not be for a one-off reduction, but the Commerce Commission should be required to authorise any territorial authority rates increases above inflation to ensure that territorial authorities are not using the reduction in rates as an opportunity to increase rates to grow other functions.  The net burden on property owners and consumers in each district (adding rates and water charges) will be taken into account.  

5.    Water companies should borrow to fund upgraded infrastructure and recover this from user fees.  Ultimately consumers should pay and as with electricity lines companies, and airports, the Commerce Commission should have oversight over the financial performance 

Opposition to the Three Waters is well justified, but taking power away from local authorities is a good thing. Yet proposed opaque governance structure, which inexplicably adds the Iwi element, is not a recipe for significant efficiencies going beyond some economies of scale and bargaining power in procurement. The forced amalgamation is unlikely to be the best outcome, because neither the Minister nor DIA officials are likely to know what's best.

So Three Waters reforms should stop, but the need for reform remains.  However, even ACT has taken a very pathetic, limp approach to this issue. 

Three Waters Reform: The left opposed water reform in the 90s, why trust them now?

You might have noticed the childlike cartoons the Government has chosen to communicate to you about one of the most radical infrastructure policy reforms proposed for over twenty years – the Three Waters Reforms. Those cartoons might have put you off, but they shouldn’t. For all of the fluff government is involved in, one of the most important activities it unfortunately is responsible for is the supply of reticulated water and the collection of wastewater and stormwater. Forget Covid19, because if the water systems fail you really ARE in for a public health crisis. Millions of people worldwide don’t have access to clean drinking water and don’t have safe sewage collection and disposal, and it costs lives. This is important, too important to have those who use and pay for it talked down to like primary school children, and too important for you to ignore.  Bear with me, this is complicated...

What’s the problem?

The current system of managing water infrastructure is, in many parts of the country, a failure. Who could miss the regular reports out of Wellington, the capital, which has systematically failed to put enough ratepayers’ money into the water and sewage systems? Stories of drinking water from Hawke’s Bay to Otago being infected or tainted. So the case for reform is overwhelming. The Government’s own papers indicate 40,000 people lived under temporary or permanent “boil water” notices for their reticulated supply in the year 2018-2019. Four people died and over a third of the population in Havelock North became ill because Hastings District Council didn’t effectively manage the town’s water supply. An earlier study indicated 35,000 people get ill annually because of the quality of drinking water.

The Government’s own report estimates there is at least a $120 billion gap in capital spending on water infrastructure. Another stat is it is estimated that 21% of water is lost in reticulation – 1 in 5 litres of water that Councils collect to reticulate to homes and businesses is wasted in the distribution. That is frankly outrageous.  Local authorities are often reminding us all to look after the environment and not to waste water, but their own ineptitude results in enormous waste.  It is notable that there are limited statistics about the state of stormwater infrastructure, because local authorities just don't know. If your home or business has ever flooded due to rainfall, then you might care, because stormwater infrastructure is what helps protect your property.

Why has this happened?

The Government claims the problem is a matter of:

· Lack of economies of scale: 67 local authority entities supply water infrastructure (there are small private operations as well) without the capacity and capability to address issues. Career paths for those in the sector are limited with multiple small entities and small scale capital spending generates insufficient competition in the contracting sector to put price pressure on those costs. It claims water entities need customer bases in the high hundreds of thousands to be viable.  There is definitely merit in this.

· Unaffordability of needed investment: Under the current approach, the money ratepayers would need to be forced to spend to remedy historic underspending is enormous. Government estimates increases of 300-1500% in spending are needed over the next thirty years compared to current levels. This is quite credible, indicating a desperate need for both new capital and for ways to obtain efficiencies to reduce these costs over time.  However, it would be dishonest to pretend that those who use water shouldn't pay for this, albeit over many years. 

· Poor incentives and lack of effective oversight:  This is where the Government lays bear what’s REALLY wrong. It is that the model of “democratic control” of the provision of water services, and the “power of general competence” of local government in overseeing that control is a failure.  It is worth remembering that "democratic control" is a touchstone of leftwing political philosophy.  

To quote from the Government’s own report:

Local authority service providers operate in a political environment, in which investment decisions are made by elected representatives who have a duty to consider broader community interests (for example, other investment priorities and affordability of rates increases) and a constrained financial environment, in which the main funding and financing  mechanisms are via ratepayers and council borrowing. These factors combine to limit the level of three waters investment.

In short, local politicians prefer spending rates money on other stuff and prefer not to raise rates to pay for water infrastructure. It talks of misaligned incentives, which is surely a euphemism for politicians care most about being elected, second most about getting attention for shiny stuff they made ratepayers pay for, third most about other stuff they can get credit for in three years. How many local politicians campaign on fixing the pipes, especially when such work can literally take years to complete, is largely only visible as a disruption and the end result is… continuity of what you had before?

These failures are a legacy of opposition to water reform in the 1990s

Electricity, gas, telecommunications, aviation, ports, road transport, public transport, all were subject to significant reforms in the 1980s or 1990s, but water was largely left alone. With the sole exception of Auckland, with the creation of Watercare Services in 1991, all other water provision was left in the hands of territorial authorities. Water is a legacy of the Muldoon era and beyond, with the exception of some local authorities consolidating and in some cases implementing water metering, not a lot happened.

Some Aucklanders might remember the Water Pressure Group, led by the late, conspiracy theorist, Penny Bright.  One of the cause célèbre of the hard left was opposition to the commercialisation of water in Auckland seen in the creation of Watercare Services, which supplies water and wastewater (not stormwater) services in the city. The New Labour Party, later the Alliance (when it included the Greens) were loudly opposed to what they saw as the bogey of privatisation (which never happened).  As the Alliance was on the ascendancy, after the 1993 General Election, National pursued little in reform of the water sector, and as Labour went back to the left under Helen Clark, the idea of reforming water was parked.  After MMP, there was no majority for any serious reforms in the sector, and from 1999-2008 the Clark Government proceeded, with support from the Alliance and the Greens (who had now left the Alliance) to pass the Local Government Act 2002 to grant local government a "power of general competence".  In short, the left trusted local government to get on with the job. Of course the Key/English Government from 2008 until 2017 did nothing either to reverse it.

The power of general competence and community empowerment have been a failure

The implementation of the power of general competence was to usher in a new era.  Then Local Government Minister Sandra Lee said "It is both a reaffirmation of the place that local government has within our democracy, and of the rights of local people in their communities to exercise controls over their aspirations, their decisions, and the democracy that affects them."   

So communities were "empowered" which of course is code for empowering local politicians. Sandra Lee even made it clear that water privatisation was to be prevented. "We are not going to agree to allow councils to sell what is not a commodity--the access to clean water--but a fundamental human right."  I'm not sure how the people who died in Havelock North had their "fundamental human right" protected, and how asserting that right works if the Council has let the local infrastructure fall into disrepair.  Indeed then Associate Local Government Minister Judith Tizard later claimed credit for having including "cultural wellbeing" in the objectives of local government.  Not much culture if you're sick because the Council supplied water is contaminated.

Backed wholeheartedly by the Greens, the reforms were to usher in a new era of “local democratic accountability” with more powers to deliver what “the community wants”. Indeed, it is the heart of the mantra of the economic left that justice is achieved by more “democratic control” of resources. Well we’ve seen how democratic control of water has been going, and the results are in – it's been a failure.

 What needs to be fixed?

Users, in many cases, don’t pay for what they use. With the cost of water infrastructure for many hidden in rates bill, there are no incentives to manage water use, and those who need water face rationing alongside those who waste the resource. Furthermore, those who benefit from stormwater infrastructure don't necessarily pay rates reflecting the protection of property value they obtain from it (nor do insurance costs reflect that adequately).

Local authorities get paid rates regardless of how much water is used or wasted. So they have poor incentives to stop wasting 21% of the water collected and distributed, to plug leaks so that they can sell the water they collect. 

Local authorities aren't required to spend money on water infrastructure so they may levy water rates, or pay for water from general rates, but they have a "power of general competence" and they are accountable to you every three years at the ballot box.  They spend money how they like, and your power to change that is tiny.

Politicians are no better able to decide how best to spend money on water infrastructure than they are on electricity (which they don’t) or telecommunications (which they don’t) or on farms. Bear in mind local politicians are primarily responsible for housing shortages because they are the controllers of permission to build housing and to allow land to be used for housing. Expect them to make similar quality decisions around provision of essential infrastructure.

Imagine if your local power company spent the money raised from your power bill on a convention centre. The reason that, by and large, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure work is because you pay for its use and the providers spend the money on maintaining and providing the service. It’s capitalism working, because those companies borrow money based on future earnings and invest in the network to continue providing reliable service.

Given that the Ardern Government is the most leftwing government in New Zealand in nearly 40 years, you might think that with reality confronting ideology, they might actually think that this is a failure due to their own philosophy not working empirically. You see if the Douglas/Richardson reforms had NOT progressed, you’d be seeing the same malinvestment in electricity (which was beset with blackouts in the 70s and 80s before reforms), and telecommunications (which famously, before the mobile phone era, saw it take weeks to get a phone line installed).

What is proposed?

It’s curious that the Government has relied somewhat on Scotland as a source of advice for how to implement water, especially when its own report indicated much better performance in England (see above)– which DID famously reform water by privatising the lot in the 1980s. It notes that privatisation of water in England  improved productivity by 2.1% per annum over 24 years (64% all up) after adjusting for quality of service improvements. Achieving a net saving of 64% in cost over such a period has to be tempting.

That is, of course, the right answer.

It isn’t proposing that, because you see, the Ardern Government is in many ways, continuity Alliance,

It is proposing:

· A water regulator to set standards for water quality, with powers to direct water providers to act to meet its directives;

· Consolidating 67 entities into 4;

· The new entities will be owned by local government

· Two boards will govern the new entities. A professional independent board, akin to boards supplying other infrastructure (a semi corporate board) and a regional representative board, which is to be split 50/50 between local government and Iwi.

· The Regional Representative Board will appoint members to the independent selection panel to select the Board, which will then select the board. In effect local authorities and Iwi will indirectly appoint the board.

· Setting of charges must be done transparently, with no changes to how people are charged in “the initial years”. The new entities will have powers to borrow.

· Protections against privatisation, mostly by local government and Iwi having to have a 75% majority in favour of it.

· The entities be statutorily required to uphold “the principles” of Te Tiriti, with the board needing to have competence in Te Tiriti, Tikanga, Matauranga and Te Ao Maori;

· The entities must direct water users funds towards the capacity and capabilities of mana whenua to support delivery of water services

· To throw taxpayers’ money at the entities to lure in local government to agree.

So it is resisting commercialising the delivery of water, preferring to largely aggregate water into entities similar to what governs water in some parts of the country already. They will be, in effect, very large Non-Commercial Council Controlled Organisations with co-governance with Iwi.

What other options were considered?

Well not commercialisation or privatisation.

The report indicates that three other options were considered:

· Local government led reform: This of course would be consistent with the Government’s philosophy, but has no merit because there are few incentives to make it work.

· A National Water Fund, akin to how land transport funding operates. Except there are no fees charged for water use nationally, and it wouldn’t really fix anything other than enable consumers in places which have well managed water systems to subsidise those in areas that don’t.

· Regulatory reform only, in other words introducing a regulator without structural reform. This would not achieve efficiencies and achieve only limited accountability.

So privatisation wasn’t considered, but the Government should be transparent as to why – which is ideology and politics. Why wasn’t commercialisation considered, by creating genuine arms-length council owned water companies, similar to Watercare services? Why not vest those companies in shares held by ratepayers (noting that it is property owners that primarily benefit from stormwater infrastructure, which protects their property from damage) or even just citizens and permanent residents as consumers? After all, the success in England in holding companies to account for quality of service, levels of investment and addressing systemic underinvestment is considerable. Why does the Ardern Government acknowledge that success then steer down another path? It seems like it is purely ideological.

What's good about the proposals?

Large entities will be able to be more professional, achieve significant capacity building and attain economies of scale. There is no doubt that there are far too many local water entities. Having borrowing powers and the ability to levy charges on consumers is also critical, but these powers largely exist now within local government.  Regulatory oversight ought to result in better outcomes than just leaving it to local government and iwi to manage, and more money will ease the pain, but that's transferring a burden from ratepayers and water consumers to general taxpayers, with no sense of the distributional impacts of that.  

What's wrong about the proposals?

The new entities wont be companies, wont be required to make a return on capital or to pay tax, meaning it will be less transparent as to whether they are operating as efficiently as they could be, or maximising the utility of their assets. As a much larger version of the current model, there isn’t so much incentive to treat those who consume water and use wastewater and stormwater services as customers. Having a customer, provider relationship more directly would provide much more input into consumer preferences than by having an advisory board.  What's fundamentally wrong with considering water similar to electricity?

Local government will still own the entities, although this ownership effectively diluted because governance is now shared with iwi, who own none of the infrastructure, nor are accountable to ratepayers.

There are probably too few entities proposed and Watercare Services, which has fewer problems compared to many other water entities, will be required to be decommercialised and merged with Northland water provision, which may mean Aucklanders cross subsidising water infrastructure in Northland. There is no need to dis-establish Watercare Services and no options given as to the number or geography of the proposed entities. Local authorities that are successful ought not to be forced to be subsumed by entities of those that are not, noting that the three waters are NOT an integrated network like energy, telecommunications and roads. There is little need for disjointed networks to be managed together, except to achieve economies of scale and professional capacity for competency.

Governance remains highly political. With local government half responsible for appointing the panel that then selects the board, the incentives are there to offer positions to those they know and trust, in short local authority nepotism. With four entities, headquartered and dominated by Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch, expect the local authorities of those cities to take charge.

The introduction of iwi governance is a vast increase in power for iwi over core infrastructure that has no precedent in other industries, and which assumes that Maori as both consumers or voters is insufficient in protecting and promoting their interests, although it might certainly promote iwi interests. The iwi role will be to share oversight with local government, which already has a growing mandatory iwi co-governance role in any case. Iwi have the same incentives as local government in appointing people to select a board to govern water. The outcomes expected from this are extremely vague such as enabling mana whenua to express kaitiakitanga, but what will this achieve in terms of outcomes such as water quality, quality of investment and accountability? Embedding Te Mana o Te Wai is harmless enough, but this is hardly unique, because Te Mana o Te Wai is universal to humanity. More fundamentally, the Government is effectively proposing a transfer of 50% of the power around the water sector to iwi, with neither the responsibility of ownership, or accountability to consumers or the owners of that infrastructure. It is a significant uplift from current obligations around consultation with Iwi, to hand over an equal share of governance, with no indication of outcomes or what it means for other sectors such as electricity, gas or telecommunications. It is a form of privatisation of governance, to iwi. I

Now there IS a valuable point in “iwi/Māori have roles within the current three waters service delivery system that will need to be acknowledged. They are suppliers and/or recipients of water services (particularly to rural marae, papakāinga, and rural communities).” As suppliers, they should be subject to the same oversight as other suppliers, but as recipients they are little different from anyone else. They receive a mix of good and poor service, but it is unclear why their role as consumers is more special than anyone else. Sure, water is a taonga, but it is to all humanity. It’s ludicrous to claim that it is more special to iwi than it is to any other.

However, this is more fundamentally about the Government’s interest in what is, in effect, creeping constitutional reform, by redefining the Te Tiriti partnership of Crown and Iwi, into one that goes beyond meaningful consultation and engagement, to sharing powers over assets that do not belong to iwi (the three Waters are about infrastructure, not lakes, rivers and streams after all). There IS a role for consulting iwi about the use of property they own or control, but to privatise half of the control over ratepayer owned infrastructure, to iwi deserves to be justified in terms of outcomes, when the reforms themselves are based on addressing serious problems with the status quo. Should this really be used as an opportunity to facilitate more iwi control?

What should happen?

Reforms are badly needed, primarily because many local authorities have proven themselves utterly inept in managing and funding water infrastructure. However, the Government is proposing to consolidate existing water entities, including successful ones, into four entities which largely resemble Council Controlled Organisations and share governance with iwi. Yes, having professional large water utility entities will be a step forward, but continuing to have significant local authority governance, which has proven to fail, and using the reforms to implement iwi co-governance, with no sense as to what improvements to outcomes this could deliver, is missing an opportunity.

Government should be bold, it should transfer the water assets of local government into a handful of specialist water companies, and issue shares in them all to all property owners connected to their networks and float the companies on the share market (and as a sop to fear over foreign takeover, you could even cap foreign ownership at 49%). Let the water companies meter or flat fee property owners for their services, and force councils to drop rates proportionately and NOT increase them by more than inflation. Given their quasi-monopoly status, central government should oversee the water companies in terms of drinking water quality, but by having popular share ownership concerns over water companies gouging consumers can be ameliorated.  If the Government did this, I'd accept the value of an independent regulator, to monitor and report on performance.

 It’s time to take the three waters out of the hands of politicians and put it in the hands of consumers as shareholders, and run it like a business. You have no more reason to trust this Labour Government with water reform than you would Jim Anderton, who opposed competition and privatisation of telecommunications, electricity, aviation etc etc.

We've seen the results of having a utility sector entirely at the behest of democratic accountability to the community under local government. It's been a failure.  The water sector needs reforming, it needs bold moves resembling what happened and succeeded in England in the 1980s. Shame the Government is willfully ignorant and unwilling to even consider that model as an option.

The Government claims significant benefits from their reforms, over thirty years. This may well be credible, but is based on many assumptions around efficiency savings seen in Scotland with consolidation, and that these efficiencies wont be lost in a strange new co-governance model.  However, since the Government didn't even look at the option of following England  - even without privatising the companies - we wont know if it chose the best option, as the options analysis has clearly been politically cauterised, by people whose political ideology has so demonstrably failed in this instance.

Why would anyone trust them to get this right now?  

Local authorities are currently consulting on whether communities support the Three Waters Reforms, and many oppose it, not least because local government never likes losing power and influence.  You should let them know that you oppose the proposals, but not because it takes powers away from local communities (whatever that is), but because it puts power in the hands of people who are NOT primarily interested in delivering efficient, high quality services to consumers.

So tell your territorial authority AND tell your local MP what you think of these reforms.  Be grateful also that electricity and telecommunications aren't being run by your local authority.  Imagine the blackouts.

Water - the last utility of the Soviet era

You could hardly not notice the growing list of scandals seen in local authority supplied water, sewer or stormwater services in recent times and wonder what has gone wrong.  From lead in water supplied by Dunedin City Council in a number of small towns, to the Havelock North water supply contamination and the breakdown of multiple parts of Wellington's water networks.  Imagine if a private water bottler had been caught with the contamination of supply seen by some local authority systems, the howls of outrage from politicians would be palpable, but it isn't quite that way - you see water in New Zealand is perhaps the last bastion of what socialists call the "democratic control of the means of production, distribution and exchange" of the key utility networks.

Unlike electricity, gas, telecommunications, ports, airports, railways and even roads, water (outside Auckland) in New Zealand was shielded from any serious economic reform during the 1980s and the 1990s. That was a time, which seems so long ago now, when there was widespread commercialisation and in some cases privatisation of utility networks, and either liberalisation of market entry or the application of independent oversight and regulation of the management and supply of the services concerned.

Before then, local electricity distribution was led by local authorities, which managed them much like water and the results were underinvestment in power line networks in some places, gold plating in others, and frequent power cuts as parts of the networks failed.  Now these networks are either privatised or run by local trusts, but all subject to regulatory oversight around capital spending and how much they can charge consumers for maintenance and renewal of their assets. 

You see local authority issues with infrastructure don't mean all infrastructure, because they actually have little struggle at all with the infrastructure they are not responsible for owning, managing or funding.  Electricity, gas and telecommunications networks all grow, expand and get maintained with little recourse to ratepayers or indeed the "democratic control" that the left is so keen on.  Now that isn't to mean that there isn't some government intervention, such as the vast spending on fibre optic networks funded by central government but undertaken by private enterprise, but this is not the model by which water networks are funded or managed in New Zealand - you see water remains the last bastion of the Soviet style era of socialist management of a utility.

If you want to take a nostalgic trip back to the era of Rob Muldoon, the era that the late Jim Anderton and his Alliance Party, and indeed at one point Winston Peters, pined for, you need only look at how the "three waters" (supply, waste and stormwater) are supplied and managed in New Zealand today.  Indeed, it is a case study in exactly how the principles of democratic socialist economics work in practice.  You can see the vestiges of this thinking in Green Party policy today, which says "Ensure Council Controlled Organisations are only used where this has benefits over direct service provision by local authorities".  

Leftwing opposition to reform of water is long standing.  It is almost laughable today to recall when former Green MP (and still Wellington Regional Councillor) Sue Kedgley regarded reforms to the Local Government Act allowing local authorities to choose to contract private companies to provide water infrastructure for contract periods of longer than 15 years as  "the potential to be hugely harmful to the public".   She much prefers a democratically controlled water supply that sees lead enter it, with the ultimate penalty being... you might not get re-elected as a city councillor.

However, it is the late (conspiratorially minded) Penny Bright, who founded the wittily named "Water Pressure Group" in Auckland that for many many years was the squealer that regarded any private sector involvement in the water sector as beyond the pale.  She regarded water as "a basic human right", albeit one that she thought was best delivered by a bunch of politicians re-elected every three years directing a bureaucracy.  She was passionate about her beliefs, but wrong.

The problem with water is the problem that was seen with telecommunications when it was run by the Post Office, or electricity when it was run by the Municipal Electricity Department of Wellington City Council (or whatever council) et al, which is that political control of the funding and of the taxation needed to maintain and renew a complex utility was extremely poor at being accountable to those who "own" the infrastructure and consume its services, because there is little link between what you pay, where that money is spent and how much is spent on the water networks.  The NZ Post Office once thought it was a great idea to install "triple twisted copper cable" for telephone lines in the Wellington suburb of Khandallah, despite it not being the international standard for phone lines, because some engineers thought it would improve its robustness - at the same time upwards of 50% of coin operated public phone boxes did not work (there were no mobile phones then).  Bureaucratic service delivery agencies don't get driven by customer needs, but their own internal imperatives and those of their political masters, which understandably are pulled in many different directions - but customer service (being a monopoly, funded from taxes) isn't upper most (unless of course, in a few cases, it is to help a Councillor or his mates out).

Local politicians almost never campaign for election on issues like renewing water infrastructure, but they sure like big shiny showoff things like convention centres, sports stadiums and "visions".  After all, why campaign on something that involves digging streets up and nobody really notices, when you can get your name put on a park or a building instead?  Imagine if the issue of installing more mobile phone capacity were up to local government and it were paid for by rates, would it ever get done?  Water supply pipes, wastewater pipes, stormwater pipes, none of them matter much to most people most of the time, until their service stops or their property is flooded - so they are easy for politicians to defer spending on. 

There is one exception in New Zealand, which is Auckland.  Watercare Services was set up in 1991 as an example of how to commercialise water delivery (albeit not stormwater), and it is from this that the leftwing backlash against water reform arose.  Opposition to commercialisation, opposition to people paying for the water they use was central to this.  The idea that it is somehow fairer for the single pensioner who uses barely enough water for a few cups of tea and a shower a day to cross subsidise the water used by a family of four was not an argument worth having with the organised, almost hysterical, opposition to reform.  So Watercare Services was not replicated elsewhere, albeit that local government reforms did allow local authorities to do so if they wished - but rare is the local politician willing to relinquish control.  It's notable that Auckland doesn't seem to have the issues with supply or wastewater of other cities, although stormwater remains a major issue (and is outside Watercare's remit).

So water, as it remains, has all of the symptoms of a centrally planned, "democratically accountable", bureaucratically delivered service.  It's funding for capital is entirely dependent on local politicians choosing to allocate rates money to it or to borrow to pay for large investment, and so it has to plan from year to year based on how councillors manage their priorities - whether it be convention centres, minimising rates increases or getting elected.  It is only when water infrastructure gets critical (i.e. pipes bursting, supply running out or being poisoned) that political attention is given, and that is frankly too late. Water in New Zealand is socialism in action, and it demonstrates that it is profoundly difficult to get politicians to focus on long-term priorities that are not seen as trendy (note that some are extremely eager to make interventions under the auspices of trying to stop climate change, even though the impact of those interventions is infinitesimal, it's much more about being seen to do the right thing).

Ironically, the recently elected Labour Government has decided to reform water in a way that a previous Labour Government refused to do so for roads - by encouraging local government to take water out of its control altogether and putting it into a handful of centrally government controlled organisations.  Yes it is arguably nationalisation, but it is a transfer from barely capable local control to something else.   It is almost admitting that local democratic control of a critical utility has failed as a delivery model, and that having arms-length professional organisations (let's call them State Owned Enterprises maybe?) that charge consumers for the services they provide, recover capital costs from consumers over the lifetime of those assets and seek to optimise costs and service delivery (with regulatory oversight) is a much better model - i.e. the model that many politicians on the left would have called "neo-liberal" and a precursor to that nastiest of words "privatisation".

However, NZ has had decades of water being supplied "not for profit" and with "democratic control", maybe it's about time it was left to professionals, with the political role being to set up the legal framework to ensure that water is run as a business like other utilities.  The Government's proposals are encouraging, although I would be much more draconian and just take it off of councils and legally require them to cease charging water rates or cut general rates that fund water, and then establish a mix of metered or uniform charges for water consumers.

Of course the UK privatised water many years ago, and hasn't looked back. Some stats on that experience (source: Statement of Professor Chris Binnie, former President of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (not uncritical of the water privatisation process):

• Drinking water quality measured at tap increased from a 99% pass rate to 99.96%
• Properties at risk of low water pressure reduced from 2% to 0.001%
• Properties subject to unplanned water supply interruptions of 12 or more hours reduced from 0.4% to 0.003%
• Leakage dropped from 4,980ml/d to 3,306ml/d by 2000, but is still too high (3,183ml/d) in 2018
• Residential water meter use raised from zero to 55%, with a target of 80% by 2040.
• Per capita water consumption dropped from 155 l/h/d to 141 l/h/d (with more households, each household using less water)
• Household properties at risk of internal sewer flooding reduced from 32,000 to 3,000.
• Non-compliance with the EU Bathing Water Directive (regarding dumping of wastewater at sea) reduced from 16% to 1%
• Failures to respond within 10 working days to complaints dropped from nearly one third to 0.4% failure within five working days.
  

Sure there is plenty to criticise (e.g. Thames Water remains slow in addressing leaks, but it has reasonable incentives to address it, because it can't charge consumers for water leaking from its system and it is generally more costly to provide more capacity for storage than to fix leaks), but it is notable that the water problems are as much about an ideological resistance to reform as they are due to the failings of a system that is not well set up to incentivise investment, supply of services to consumers and deliver long term outcomes.

It looks like New Zealand (except Auckland) is coming to an end of its Soviet-style/Muldoonist era in water management, thanks to a left-wing Labour Government acting to implement reforms that are not far removed from what the Lange/Palmer/Moore Labour Government or the Bolger/Shipley National Governments might have done. It's also telling that the much vaunted "power of general competence" that the first term of the Clark Government granted local government has proven to not be competent in managing the three waters in so many cases.  

Perhaps there are other compentences that local government should be freed from as well?