|
Resolution
number PPK/2022/123
MOVED by Chairperson B Catchpole, seconded by Deputy
Chairperson J Robinson:
That
the Papakura Local Board:
a) note
the Papakura Local Board feedback on the Water Services Bill as follows:
That the Papakura Local Board:
a) provide the following feedback
to the Governing Body on the Government’s Water Services Bill:
i) The
model appears to be complex – it is difficult to understand how all the
different parts interact. An entity relationship diagram would help
understanding.
ii) How
will the Papakura Veolia franchise fit into the Water Services entity model?
iii) The
board is opposed to land
that has a dual purpose, such as a park that also has a stormwater function
and potentially contains community assets, being transferred over to the
Water Services entity.
iv) The board seeks clarification about who will
have responsibility for the community assets on a park that has a stormwater
function.
v) Should parks with stormwater functions be
transferred, there needs to be a clear process in place for the transfer,
ongoing maintenance, and usage.
vi) The
board is concerned about the Water Services entity’s accountability to
the public / ratepayer.
vii) The board is
struggling to see where the financial savings will come from in establishing
the water entities.
That the Papakura Local Board:
b) provides the
following additional feedback on the Water Services Entities Bill:
i. Support the
intention of three waters reform, in particular the need, outside Auckland,
for amalgamation to achieve economies of scale and greater professionalism.
ii. Support the need
for greater investment in water and the need for regulation to ensure
uniformly high standards of quality for fresh water and treatment of
wastewater, nationwide.
iii. Do not support the loss
of clear governance by Aucklanders' elected representatives and
accountability to them. The proposed model fails to outline robust and clear
lines of accountability that are required to ensure good governance and the
Water Services Entity's responsiveness to those it serves.
a. Auckland
will contribute over 90 percent of the population and 93 percent of the
assets for the new Northern entity. However, as a result of these proposed
reforms, Aucklanders' governance role through their elected representatives
will be reduced to a minority voice.
b. Additionally,
independent polling in late 2021 shows significant support from Aucklanders
that any new water entities should be kept accountable and responsive to the
public through their elected council representatives and agree that Auckland Council should have majority
control in any new entity.
iv. The legislation, as
currently drafted, does not provide any role for Council in determining which
of its assets should transfer other than obligations to co-operate with the
transition.
v. The Papakura local
board supports the Council’s notion to strongly seek a more robust
process and role for Council in determining which of its assets should
transfer to the Water Services Entity. We note that this issue will be
particularly acute with stormwater assets which are less easy to separate
than water and wastewater assets.
vi. Do not support shifting
stormwater management responsibilities to the WSE before there is enough
proof of the benefits of doing so and the challenges this will cause for
integrated land and water management.
a. Local
boards support the council’s request for a deferral on the inclusion of
stormwater in the new entity until further work is undertaken. More
clarification is needed on:
i) benefits and
costs of transferring stormwater functions from local authorities to the
WSE
ii) The role of the
economic regulator in relation to stormwater functions and how that
regulatory framework could appropriately account for the social, community,
and environmental needs and benefits that are intrinsically linked with
stormwater management
iii) The important
ramifications of the stormwater function being completely separated from the
council's land use planning and freshwater management
b. One
of the most important operational concerns has been the need to distinguish
between stormwater assets and local park assets, as well as the policies that
administer these places for various reasons. These spaces promote stormwater
management, biodiversity, and recreational results simultaneously.
c. There
has not been enough work done to understand the implications and justify its
inclusion. This is in light of Auckland's unitary council status and its
ongoing role in integrating resource management. This should only move
forward if the mechanisms connecting the delivery of stormwater functions
within the WSE with land use and transport planning and environmental
management within council have been sufficiently tested, and there is
complete clarity on how Auckland Council, as a unitary authority, can
continue to carry out its regulatory role. Simply creating service-level
agreements will not fix these problems.
vii. The three waters reform,
resource management reform, and the future of local government review
proceeding without complete knowledge as to how they will work together given
the intrinsic and intricate relationships between them pose a significant
danger and unforeseen consequences.
viii. More clarity is
needed on the different consumer engagement and community engagement models.
a. Appreciate
the inclusion of consumer forums to help the WSE understand consumer
requirements and expectations, to reflect and represent the diverse interests
of consumers throughout the WSE's region.
b. However,
the purpose is broad and in order for the forum to engage successfully,
technical specialists and community stakeholders who have the ability to
effectively reflect and represent the interests of a region are needed (i.e.
local boards’ role in representing the views of their local
communities).
CARRIED
|
