The ACT Party continues to "slip" into talking about the "bogeyman of co-governance" as controversy persists around Three Waters, the Greens' Chlöe Swarbrick says.
It comes after Prime Minister Chris Hipkins last week scrapped plans to create four mega-entities, instead opting for a smaller set of 10 entities.
Implementing the new entities would also be pushed out an additional two years with the Government retiring its use of the "Three Waters" name.
However, several controversial parts of the Three Waters plan remained, including co-governance on regional groups and the removal of assets from council balance sheets.
ACT deputy leader Brooke Van Velden today told Breakfast that the "bones of the policy" remained the same, including co-governance and a loss of local control from 67 local authorities.
"What we need is more local say and more local voice rather than it being removed and have the councils have the ability to have money for that vital infrastructure," she said.
It includes a promise of greater council input and no rates blowout. (Source: 1News)
"We don't believe it's acceptable that ratepayers are having generations of investment into the local infrastructure taken off them by central government.
"They need more money, not a handout from central government."
But Swarbrick says local councils had historically underinvested in their water infrastructure and that there needed to be the ability to raise additional money.
"One thing you will find agreement on is that there does need to be revenue sharing. Successive government reports have been commissioned and found that."
She also said ACT continued to "slip" into talking about the "bogeyman of co-governance" and asked Van Velden to explain why it continued to be an issue for the party.
Van Velden responded by saying that people that governed water entities should be "appointed by the merits".
"Every New Zealander should feel like they have an equal seat at the table, no matter what race they are, or what race their ancestors were, and this bill goes against that."
It's unknown if the newly announced changes are enough to silence the critics. (Source: 1News)
"We are in the 21st century, and everybody should be appointed on the merits, not the race."
Swarbrick retorted: "I would have thought that the ostensible libertarian party would be massively in favour of upholding the contract that founded this country."
Yesterday, Local Government Minister Kieran McAnulty told Q+A that the changes would help fulfil Treaty principle obligations that the Government legally held to Māori.
The Government has retained a 50/50 iwi and local council split for seats on the regional representative groups of the 10 newly-planned water entities. These groups would focus on the strategic direction of the agencies and would "sit below the governance board, where members will be appointed on merit and qualification," McAnulty said last week.
ACT: 'It's never the right time for centralisation'
In response to the Government's new plans, Van Velden continued to argue: "It's never the right time for centralisation. Centralisation is not the answer."
The Local Government Minister joined Q+A to discuss the new shape of Three Waters reforms, including the retention of co-governance principles in the regional representative boards. (Source: 1News)
Swarbrick said: "What this fundamentally boils down to is the fact that rates have been kept far too low for far too long. And that has meant that we've seen this cycle of under-investment and a kind of status quo: 'Don't worry, everything is fine'".
"We need to ensure that we're looking upstream and preventing this stuff from getting into water in the first place, which means looking after our natural environment."
She added that there was a balance to be struck between local control and the ability to raise revenue after the Greens' opposed the Government's original mega-entities plan.
The new Three Waters plan, now known as "Affordable Water Reforms" or the "Water Services Reform Programme", would retain the balance sheet separation that the original plan for mega-entities would have used to borrow more money.
The complex-sounding approach allows larger, combined water entities to effectively borrow more money than councils currently can since the two organisations will no longer share the same balance sheet.
A key part of the plan also includes amalgamated entities cross-subsidising the cost of infrastructure across cities, towns, and rural areas.
Q+A's Jack Tame digs into why the water reform programme has caused such a strong backlash. (Source: Breakfast)
Van Velden continued: "There is a problem. We do have sewerage leaking out into our parks and into our streams, and to our beaches. That's not acceptable.
"The problem here is not going to be solved by the government having these assets, centralisation, and co-government that's unnecessarily divisive.
"Local government has a real issue where they, you know, they either have to increase their debt, or they have to increase rates.
"I want to give them more money through my GST sharing bill, so that every time a new person moves into their cities, they're helping to pay for that vital infrastructure."
SHARE ME