Council to decide on setting up water CCO
Queenstown Lakes households may face higher water charges for the next nine years if the district council agrees to establish a new council-controlled organisation to deal with Three Waters.
However, council property and infrastructure general manager Tony Avery said, based on modelling, the proposed water services council-controlled organisation (WSCCO) would lead in the long term to "lower charges on average" for the 10 years from 2034.
At a full council meeting in Arrowtown on Thursday, elected members will be asked to agree to consult on the proposal to establish the WSCCO. If they agree, consultation would begin on Monday.
Mr Avery said as part of central government's Local Water Done Well Plan, to address New Zealand's water infrastructure challenges, the council had carefully assessed options for the future delivery of water services.
The other shortlisted option evaluated was for the council to continue to deliver water services in-house, which would be subject to the Commerce Commission's regulatory requirements.
Mr Avery said the council needed to be confident the model chosen would be capable of delivering financially sustainable water services to meet the increased financial requirements in legislation intended to be passed by central government.
"Under all scenarios, including council's current long-term plan, water charges are projected to increase substantially."
If agreed, the WSCCO would manage and deliver drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services in the district, and own the council's current water assets and their associated debt and liabilities.
The proposed organisation would operate independently from the council.
The Local Water Done Well reforms are underpinned by the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, expected to come into force later this year, which will require councils to transition to a separation of water charges from their general rates.
At a workshop early this month, council strategy and reform manager Pennie Pearce told councillors the internal assessment found the district's households would face slightly cheaper annual Three Waters charges for the first 10 years under the in-house model, but those costs were projected to be lower under a CCO after that.
— APL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
On Why The Regulatory Standards Bill Should Be Dumped
If you blinked on a recent Friday afternoon, you might have missed the passing under urgency of the first reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Bill purports to be a kind of legislative WOF test that all of us should welcome, right? Not really. Instead, shouldn't we all be feeling a bit worried by the fact that – if this Bill gets passed – then nearly all of our existing laws and nearly everything that future governments might want to do will henceforth need to be vetted by ACT Party leader Davd Seymour and the members of his hand-picked, un-elected Regulatory Standards Board? Meaning: the aims and the effects of this Bill seem to be fundamentally un-democratic. That concern, however, was only one of the points raised by submitters during a two month consultation period timed by the government to coincide with the Christmas/New Year holidays, when people were otherwise occupied. Even so, 23,000 submissions were received and reportedly, 88% of them were opposed to the Bill. Besides the affront to democracy, the other objections cited by submitters were that the Bill is a solution to a non-existent problem, that it will duplicate existing review mechanisms and will make law-making more complex, more costly, less timely and less efficient by adding a needless extra layer of bureaucracy. Submitters were particularly concerned about the lack of recognition of any Treaty of Waitangi rights and interests, or of human rights concerns, or of the competing social, environmental and economic interests that should also (surely) be considered fundamental to the process of making good law. If it gets passed, the Bill will come into effect on 1 January next year. Courting trouble One of the prime concerns with this Bill is that it seems to bestow on corporations (whose 'property 'has been taken or suffered 'impairment' as a result of government law or regulation) the power to sue for compensation. Problem being, the word ' property' in this context means not simply the taking of land or buildings, but 'impairment' of profit expectations as well. Alarmingly, this compensation would be sought first from the prime beneficiaries of the relevant laws or regulations. Inevitably, this possibility would have a chilling effect on the activities of, for example, iwi or environmental groups. Ultimately, the aggrieved 'owner' could also sue the government for compensation. The text of the Regulatory Standards Bill can be found here. The section to do with 'owners' and 'impairment' and the right to compensation is set out at Part 2, Subpart 1, clauses 8c (i) (ii )and (iii). As background: the justification for treating corporates as having the same legal rights as human beings is recognised by the Companies Act 1993, and is based on something called the Salomon Principle. This yardstick was derived from an 1897 case that's widely regarded as the foundation stone of modern company law. So keep all that in mind when you read those 8c clauses that essentially seek to prohibit legislation that takes or impairs 'property' without the owner's consent unless 'fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment.' So to repeat: if say, the law or regulation primarily benefits an iwi, or Greenpeace or a local community group, the disgruntled investor can go after them first – and since the Bill is spectacularly silent on Treaty obligations, the iwi in question would be in the firing line without a leg to stand on. Especially since the Bill is vocal about an 'equality' that takes no account of privilege, historical injustice or any other socio- environmental factors. Only private property, widely defined, is treated as sacrosanct. True, the same section of the Bill does say there has to be 'good justification' for the taking or the impairment – but ultimately, who will get to decide whether regulatory actions are 'good' and /or are 'justified' ? Why... that would be the handpicked, un-elected Regulatory Standards Board. Not for the first time, justice will be a flat circle. Thankfully, plenty of people are becoming aware of this risk. Last week, Waikato University academic Ryan Ward published on Newsroom a concise, well argued account of the risks posed by the 'takings' aspect of the Bill. Ward's article is entitled 'How the Regulatory Standards Bill Could Leave Taxpayers On The Hook.' Exactly. Back to the MAI This is not a fresh concern. The ACT Party has tried (and failed) to get much the same legislation across the line in 2006, 2011, and 2021. Before, ACT had tried to give the courts the power to declare legislation to be out of sync with its own regulatory preferences, but the new version hands these same powers to the appointed Board. In fact, the history of this gambit dates back even further than 2006. The attempt to provide foreign investors with the ability to sue, intimidate and restrict sovereign governments goes back at least as far as 1997. That was when a draft version of the Multilateral Agreement On Investment (MAI) being secretly negotiated by the OECD got leaked to the public. The subsequent global protest movement ended in the defeat and withdrawal of the MAI. A few years later, the same toxic MAI provisions re-surfaced in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP, now CPTPP), and again, these provisions sparked widespread protests. Nearly 30 years ago, I wrote two articles outlining the threat to sovereign goverments posed by the similar MAI provisions now being enshrined in the Regulatory Standards Bill: ...The MAI gives foreign investors one important advantage. They will be able, under stated procedures, to sue governments for compensation if the government enacts policies that the foreign investor feels will affect it unfairly. Under almost all international treaties - the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the other exception - only states can sue each other. Under the MAI, however, multinationals can bring actions against governments. Even the threat of litigation from a multinational with deep pockets, as the British Columbia submission points out, may be enough to deter some governments or local bodies. Such disputes then go to a panel of unelected experts, for binding arbitration. Footnote: Interestingly in the light of the current government's willingness to roll back the Crown's Treaty of Waitangi obligations, I had written in the same 1997 article how the 'stand-still' and 'rollback' provisions of the MAI ( ie. no new laws and regulations, and a phased reduction in current investment restrictions over time) might enable future governments to amend the Treaty of Waitangi. On the reservation for the Treaty of Waitangi..., for instance, [then MFAT chief Richard ]Nottage says, it is "just about inconceivable" that we would roll this back. Inconceivable? Well, could a future Act/National government conceivably desire to limit some rights currently enjoyed under the Treaty of Waitangi? If so, the MAI rollback proviso gives an excellent rationale - because it amounts to a promise to the world that we will do so. Footnote Two: In the late 2000s, I also recall arguing with then-ACT leader Rodney Hide about the Colorado precedents that Hide was seeking to implement here – like, for example, his attempt to try and impose a sinking lid on local government spending. This legal stratagem would have involved imposing a spending cap on local councils, largely based on their previous year's expenditure, and with any excess revenue having to be returned to ratepayers as an annual rebate. This Colorado-style spending cap-and-rebate scheme that ACT tried – and failed – to get accepted into law here 20 years ago would have essentially stopped councils from addressing extra social needs, fixing core infrastructure or diverting more than 1% of their annual revenue to meet emergencies. This isn't (entirely) ancient history. It forms a key part of the whakapapa of the same political party pushing the Regulatory Standards Bill, and is entirely consistent with it. Famously, these Colorado libertarian experiments in fiscal self-starvation came to a climax in the deeply conservative city of Colorado Springs, which the Politico website wrote about in 2017, in an article called 'The Short Unhappy Life of a Libertarian Paradise.' In that case, the city's local government spending was cut back so harshly that citizens eventually had to club together to adopt and fund the street lights in their neighbourhoods, were forced to cut the grass in public parks themselves, and had to go out and hire sufficient police and firefighters. After three years of this, Colorado Springs saw the errors of its libertarian ways, and the public voted to increase taxes. Point being: the same ACT Party that thought the above disaster was an experiment worth repeating here is now trying to impose on us the Regulatory Standards Bill – which, on the face of it, would give investors the power to sue for compensation if their profit margins are affected when we exercise our right to make laws that primarily benefit us, and not them. Muddled messages True, the Bill does claim ( Subpart 5, clause 24 (1) that it 'does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.' Yet the 'Principles' section of the Bill says ' Most of the Bill does not confer or impose any legal right or obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.' [My emphasis.] There is – for starters - a legally enforceable duty on state agencies to supply information on request to Seymour's Regulatory Standards Ministry. Meaning: under this Bill, 'commercial sensitivity' seems to be a one way street by which aggrieved investors who have the ear of the Regulations Ministry can hope to gain access to information relevant to their commercial activities. Hopefully, the select committee hearings will clarify the terms of disclosure for the commercially valuable information that liable state agencies will -apparently – be legally required to hand over to Seymour's Ministry. If we're very lucky, the select committee hearings will also clarify whether the Regulatory Standards reports will be enforceable. Or will it be possible for Parliament to blithely ignore them, just as Parliament does when it ignores reports on the incompatibility of some of its laws with the Bill of Rights. (Denying prisoners the right to vote breaches their human rights. So what? Parliament says.) Currently, that's the main muddled message being conveyed by the Regulatory Standards Bill. If it is enforceable, the Bill poses a serious threat to democracy. If it isn't, and is mere virtue signalling by the ACT Party to its corporate masters, then it is an expensive and redundant waste of taxpayer time and money. What sort of beast is it? Retrospective, Much? Finally, the Bill isn't supposed to be a retrospective piece of legislation. Yet plainly it is. Part 3 (2c) (i) empowers the Regulatory Standards Board to: ...Inquire into whether existing [my emphasis] legislation is consistent with the principles of responsible regulation; Likewise, Part 2 (b) (ii) provides for — the review of the consistency of proposed and existing legislation with the principles of responsible regulation; and (ii) the disclosure of the reasons for any identified inconsistencies; What to do? On the evidence to date, the Regulatory Standards Bill should be rejected outright. Fat chance. National seems committed to this Bill, unlike its prior stance on the Treaty Principles Bill. It is also probably too much to hope that the fish-hooks in this dangerous piece of ideological dogma will be remedied at select committee. It would be an uphill fight. In the name of a bogus ' equality' before the law, the coalition government continues to act as if Māori have no special rights as indigenous people, and that the Crown has no special duties towards them. The Treaty, and customary law, say otherwise. Even the Regulations Ministry itself (at clause seven in its heavily-redacted impact report on the Bill) baulks at this glaring omission: Of significance is that the proposals do not include a principle related to the Treaty/te Tiriti and its role as part of good law-making, meaning that the Bill is effectively silent about how the Crown will meet its duties under the Treaty/te Tiriti in this space. While this does not prohibit the Crown from complying with the Bill in a manner consistent with the Treaty/te Tiriti, we anticipate that the absence of this explicit reference may be seen as politically significant for Māori and could be perceived as an attempt by the Crown to limit the established role of the Treaty/te Tiriti as part of law-making.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Rights Aotearoa Demands Urgent Re-evaluation Of Regulatory Standards Bill's Human Rights Impact
WELLINGTON, 4 June 2025 – Rights Aotearoa, New Zealand's leading NGO devoted to promoting and defending universal human rights, today called on Attorney-General Judith Collins KC to urgently instruct the Ministry of Justice to comprehensively re-evaluate its advice on the Regulatory Standards Bill's consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Ministry's advice concluded that the Bill "appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act." Rights Aotearoa has delivered a detailed letter to the Attorney-General demonstrating that this conclusion represents a grave failure of constitutional analysis that ignores the Bill's fundamental threat to human rights, democracy, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. "The Ministry of Justice has failed in its constitutional duty to assess this Bill's impact on human rights properly," said Paul Thistoll, CEO of Rights Aotearoa. "Their analysis acknowledges that the Bill departs from how rights and freedoms are expressed in the Bill of Rights Act, yet inexplicably concludes it has no impact on those rights. This is constitutionally incoherent." Rights Aotearoa's analysis identifies multiple critical failures in the Ministry's assessment. The Ministry examined only one right superficially—freedom of expression—while ignoring clear conflicts with electoral rights, freedom from discrimination, minority rights, and the right to life. The advice fails entirely to consider how the Bill's mechanisms will create "regulatory chill," deterring future governments from enacting essential protections. Advertisement - scroll to continue reading Of particular concern is the Ministry's failure to analyse the Bill's complete exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, despite the Waitangi Tribunal's findings that the Crown breached Treaty principles through inadequate consultation with Māori and its recommendation for an "immediate halt" to the Bill's progress. The organisation highlighted how the Bill's emphasis on property rights and narrow economic efficiency will systematically undermine anti-discrimination protections. Essential measures like disability accommodations, pay equity legislation, and protections against discrimination could be challenged as "impairing" property rights. "This Bill creates a competing quasi-constitutional framework that elevates property rights above all other human rights," the letter states. "It attempts to lock in a narrow ideological worldview that will bind future Parliaments." Rights Aotearoa has committed to filing an action in the High Court, should the Bill pass in its current form, seeking a declaration that it is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The organisation calls on the Attorney-General to instruct the Ministry of Justice to conduct a comprehensive re-evaluation that accurately analyses the Bill's downstream effects on all rights, considers its practical operation, examines the constitutional implications of creating a parallel rights framework, evaluates the exclusion of Te Tiriti, and assesses the impacts on anti-discrimination protections. "At this critical constitutional moment, New Zealanders deserve rigorous, honest analysis of how this Bill will affect their fundamental rights," said Thistoll. "The current advice is not merely inadequate—it's dangerously misleading." About Rights Aotearoa Rights Aotearoa is Aotearoa New Zealand's leading non-governmental organisation dedicated to promoting and defending universal human rights. Although we have a focus on transgender, non-binary and intersex rights, we work to ensure that all people in New Zealand enjoy the full range of human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised in domestic and international law.
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Joint CCO best water option: Infometrics
A leading economist has voiced strong support for Southern Water Done Well's preferred water services delivery model, saying it offers the best pathway to safe, reliable water services and long-term financial benefits for the southern region. At a recent meeting of Southern Water Done Well (SWDW), political leaders and senior staff heard from Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen and his views on water reforms. Southern Water Done Well project leader Andrew Strahan said Infometrics was provided with documents to review. Those included the latest Morrison Low report, which included work last year for the group of eight Southland and Otago councils, a peer review of the benefits, briefings for elected members and consultation documents. SWDW's four partner councils — Waitaki, Gore, Central Otago and Clutha district councils — are consulting on three options for the future delivery of water services to meet the government's Local Water Done Well legislation. Their preferred delivery model is a jointly owned council-controlled organisation (CCO). The Infometrics chief executive and principal economist agreed, saying it provided a strategic, carefully considered approach to meeting future water services challenges. "Status quo is just not going to cut it any more. And if it does, it'll become so expensive that the community won't tolerate it ... the government clearly isn't tolerating it already. "So, effectively, things needs to change." One of the most compelling advantages of SWDW's preferred model was the leap in bargaining power it delivered. Individually, the four councils each represented just 1% to 2% of the South Island's population, placing them 13th to 18th out of 23 South Island councils, in terms of scale. By forming a jointly owned CCO, they collectively moved into the fourth-largest position, representing 6.6% of the South Island's population. "That shift in scale is transformative," said Mr Olsen. "It gives councils and their communities far greater influence when negotiating with contractors, accessing skilled staff and securing funding. In a tight infrastructure market, scale gives you options and leverage." Even greater efficiencies would be gained if other councils were accepted into a jointly owned CCO at some point in the future. Mr Olsen noted SWDW's deliberately conservative approach to financial modelling for the jointly owned CCO and emphasised the importance of looking long-term. While short-term financial gains might be modest, water assets were long-term (20 years+) and by year 20, modelling for other joint water services delivery entities had shown potential savings of up to 20% compared to going it alone, he said. Just as significantly, the joint approach improved resilience, attracted talent and helped councils meet more demanding compliance standards without overburdening local ratepayers. Mr Olsen believed there was potential for even greater gains beyond initial projections. "We've reviewed the assumptions, and they're conservative. That's appropriate, given the significant changes that have to happen, but even under these conservative assumptions, the numbers still stack up." The conservative modelling still projected 15%-16% operating and capital efficiencies being achieved over "roughly a decade", which was "a similar timeframe to achieve efficiencies as seen in other spaces". Morrison Low's modelling of the benefits of a jointly owned CCO shows SWDW consumers would save $44 million by 2033-34 compared to where costs would otherwise increase to. In its first 10 years, the jointly owned CCO would deliver $82 million in savings to consumers. Olsen also highlighted that the proposed model retained community ownership while delivering greater long-term benefits through scale and co-ordination. Southern Water Done Well's preferred delivery model gave councils the scale, flexibility and financial sustainability they simply could not get on their own while retaining community ownership and voice, Mr Olsen said. Southern Water Done Well consultation closes this Friday.
