Three Waters Update
The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern last Tuesday admitted that part of the government’s Three Waters bill has caused confusion, and had seen critics nicknaming it “Five Waters”. She has asked whether it can be clarified.
Under the bill, the four Water Service Entities must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, and mana whenua would be able to make a ‘statement’ expressing how an entity should do so.
Te Mana o te Wai refers to the fundamental importance of water in te ao Māori, and is part of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.
But the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report into the Water Services Entities Bill recommended geothermal and coastal waters also be included within Te Mana o te Wai policy.
It has led to accusations from critics (including former deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and the National Party) that the government’s reforms aren’t Three Waters, but “Five Waters”.
But the prime minister insisted that was not the case.
“I’ve read the legislation; it does not change the scope. It’s a reference to the impact that if you pump for instance wastewater into the ocean, it has an impact on coastal water,” Jacinda Ardern said on Tuesday.
But she acknowledged that part of the bill could be clarified.
“It has caused potentially some confusion. So we’ll ask the drafters whether there’s a way to make it much clearer.”
Opposition Parties have criticised the manner in which the change was added to the bill, after public consultation had ended, asking; “Why was it put in at such a late stage in the conversation, without any ability really for people to be able to make submissions in regards to that?”
Over 88,000 people took the time to make a submission on this Bill and the vast majority of those submissions were in opposition to it, yet the recommendation was to add in coastal and geothermal waters and then the Bill was introduced to parliament for its third reading, under urgency alongside many other minor technical legislation changes.
There has been a public outcry about the inclusion of the coastal and geothermal waters and with the confusion that the Prime Minister admitted has happened as a result of that inclusion she has asked that the Bill be sent back to be clarified and it is now planned to be introduced to the house on the 3rd December under urgency.
National and ACT, which have both pledged to repeal the bill should they win the next election, proposed removing geothermal and coastal waters from the legislation entirely.
Given the levels of opposition to this Bill and the stated intent from the major opposition parties to repeal any such legislation if they are to win the election next year, I believe that the government are obliged to hold off on introducing this Bill and allowing the election to be decided to show a mandate either way (for the Bill [a Labour win] or against the Bill [an Opposition win]).
There is no need to pass this legislation under urgency unless the government has another hidden agenda that they are not disclosing to the electorate. To take the time now to ensure that there is no confusion about what is proposed and to confirm a mandate from the voters by way of the general election is a sensible outcome.
New Zealand, despite the rhetoric about water quality and waterborne illnesses, is acknowledged as having the 9th best water quality in the OECD. It may not be best but it is not bad enough to warrant the current outcomes predicted from this proposal.
There is no pressing need for urgency in making this decision it should be much more important that the right decisions are made than rushing to pass the current Bill. There is that old saying that “Rushed legislation is usually bad legislation with bad outcomes” and that is definitely what will happen here.
Given that there is a commitment from the opposition to repeal the proposed legislation, should they win the election next year, combined with the level of public interest and the number of submissions on the Bill it makes sense for the government to take the time to ensure that the Bill is clear and that there is a strong mandate from the electorate in favour of it.