|
Resolution
number PKTPP/2021/259
MOVED by Member B Shen, seconded by Member E Kumar:
That
the Puketāpapa Local Board:
a)
welcome the
opportunity to provide feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council’s
submission on the Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three
Waters Services in New Zealand discussion paper.
b)
note that providing
a response to this discussion paper should not be taken as an acceptance by
the Puketāpapa Local Board of the proposals set out in the Water
Services Bill as they relate to Auckland.
c)
make the following
points in the administrative areas of:
i)
the need for
economic regulation – the board supports the need to regulate the new
water authorities to ensure they are responsive to the people they serve.
Large companies with no competition can lead to bad outcomes. The fact that
there is a perceived need for economic regulation of, and consumer protection
from, the four new entities is further evidence that the Water Services Bill
is not needed in Auckland. We currently have an adequate oversight and
regulatory system in place.
ii)
The type of
regulation and who would pay the costs:
A)
supports
the proposal that the regulator be a price-quality regulator, provided
“quality” includes factors such as the social, cultural,
environmental, and the financial wellbeing of communities.
B)
supports
the proposal that the administrative costs of the regulator be recovered
through levies as these are a straightforward, transparent, and standard way
of recovering these costs providing that the regulations are designed to
ensure they are net beneficial to consumers.
iii) What parts of three waters the regulation
would apply to – without further information it is difficult to
understand how the provision of stormwater could be economically regulated or
to demonstrate how the cost of that regulation is net beneficial to
consumers. The board believes including stormwater in the same regulatory
system as drinking water and wastewater does not make sense when there are so
many sources contributing to the SW network not under the control of the
entity.
iv) Should the regulation apply to all providers
– support the proposal that small community or private schemes should
only be regulated if the cost of regulation is outweighed by the benefits.
v)
How and when should
regulation be implemented – support a graduated approach to
implementing a conventional price-quality path, providing that this considers
the social, cultural, environmental, and the financial wellbeing of communities.
vi) What should be the statutory objectives of the
regulation regime – supports statutory objectives that would:
A)
incentivise
innovation and investment
B)
improve
efficiency
C)
share
efficiency gains with consumers
D)
considers
the impacts of climate change
E)
considers
Te mana o te Wai.
vii) What should compliance and enforcement look
like – supports the need for effective compliance and enforcement to
ensure the regulation is effective.
viii) Who the economic regulator should be –
has no opinions on who the economic regulator should be.
ix) Whether we need additional consumer
protections and how those are regulated
A)
support
the provisions in the proposal to ensure the regulator is responsive to its
customers.
B)
Further,
requests provisions to ensure the regulator is responsive to the plans and
priorities of local communities as expressed through the local boards.
C)
Request
further consideration of the role of local boards in advocating for their
communities and how this will be reflected in the statutory objectives of the
regulator.
d)
thank Member H Doig
and Deputy Chair J Turner for their mahi on the Three Waters Economic
Regulation Submission.
CARRIED
|
