Marlborough votes to establish separate water organisation
The Marlborough District Council has decided to establish on a standalone water organisation to deliver services from 2026. File photo.
Photo:
RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King
The Marlborough District Council has voted to establish a separate organisation to deliver water services in the region.
The decision to form a Water Services Organisation (WSO) was passed by eight votes to five at an extraordinary council meeting on Monday.
The government's Local Water Done Well policy required councils to come up with a financially sustainable water service delivery plan by 3 September.
Mayor Nadine Taylor said it was an incredibly important decision for the region.
"We have decided to take a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do things differently. To build better three waters infrastructure and provide greater intergenerational equity, spreading the costs over the long term," Taylor said.
"By setting up a new, water-focused organisation, it will be easier to sustainably deliver efficiencies and savings for residents on council's drinking and wastewater supplies."
During consultation with the Marlborough community, a slim majority of the roughly 45 submissions wanted a water delivery unit to stay within the council.
And some councillors agreed. Defeated councillors Brian Dawson, Deborah Dalliessi, Allanah Burgess and Sally Arbuckle all said there was not enough information to convince them that a separate water services organisation could deliver services better than the council's in-house unit.
The Marlborough District Council was in the minority for its preference of a standalone organisation, although not all councils had voted on it yet.
Of New Zealand's 65 territorial authorities, only three have preferred a standalone WSO - Selwyn, Queenstown Lakes, and Marlborough.
Nearly 68 percent, or 44 councils, preferred a multi-council organisation, joining up with neighbouring districts to deliver water services. The remaining 18 preferred to keep water services in-house.
A WSO joining Tasman and Nelson services was briefly floated, but was shelved after Nelson mayor Nick Smith ruled out collaboration on water without a full Nelson-Tasman council amalgamation. Nelson and Tasman both eventually voted to keep their water services in-house, leaving Marlborough without a neighbour to join with.
Marlborough is among the 4.6 percent of councils that preferred a standalone WSO.
Photo:
Supplied
Taylor said having a separate organisation focused solely on Marlborough's water would keep the service in the hands of the experts who knew it best.
"The new WSO will have a singular focus on the delivery of water infrastructure and be better positioned to attract the specialist staff we will need in the future," Taylor said.
Removing water assets from the council books would free up resources to focus on other services, while allowing the new WSO to borrow against those assets at a lower cost than the council could.
"Costs will be spread over a longer period of time through borrowing, leading to lower water charges when compared to retaining water services internally at council," she said.
The organisation would be council-owned, the board of directors would be council-appointed, and its direction would be set with a legally binding Statement of Expectations. The governance setup would keep the organisation accountable to Marlburians, the council said.
The council said any profit made from the WSO would be reinvested back into the water network.
By 2034, Marlborough would need $410m of investment in water infrastructure. Nearly all the townships required upgrades to pipelines, pump stations and wells.
"Many of Picton's and Blenheim's stormwater assets have an expected life of less than 10 years," Taylor said.
"In addition we have requests from the community to provide new water reticulation services, for example in Ward, Rarangi and Dry Hills in Blenheim."
The new organisation would be established on 1 July 2026, and become fully operable by 1 July 2027.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
NCEA overhaul concerns Kura Kaupapa Māori, opportunity to consider own qualifications
A student's book at Te Kura Kaupapa Maori O Takapu Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Kura Kaupapa Māori have expressed concern about the government's proposal to replace NCEA with a new qualification model, saying kura kaupapa students have only just mastered the current system. Co-chairperson of Te Rūnanga Nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa Rawiri Wright said he supports the establishment of an assessment framework that ensures integrity and mana for Māori learners, but the current proposal fails to accommodate the proven strengths of Kura Kaupapa Māori. "My gut reaction is it's a return to the bad old days of the school certificate regime and that didn't do us any favours as Māori people." But Wright said there could be an opportunity for kura to consider their own qualifications. "Perhaps the time has come for Kura Kaupapa Māori and Te Aho Matua schools to consider establishing our own qualifications and assessment strategies, aligned with the learning programmes of the Māori wānanga across the country." Education Minister Erica Stanford told Nine to Noon there was "too much credit counting" with NCEA. "I can see the system is being gamed... Credits are being used to get students across the line, like participating in a group activity or filling out a form," she said. Rawiri Wright says the proposed replacement was a monocultural, Eurocentric approach to education, he said. Photo: Te Rawhitiroa Bosch But Wright said the NCEA model has provided greater flexibility for Kura Kaupapa. He questioned why the game was being changed now. "It seems to us that our Kura Kaupapa Māori kids and kaiako (teachers) and kura, we got really familiar, we learnt how to play the NCEA game really well, to the point where the ministry now has 15 years of data which shows that our kids have outperformed all other schooling options in the country in terms of NCEA achievement." A Qualifications Authority report from 2024 showed that students at kaupapa Māori schools achieved better NCEA results than their peers at comparable English-medium schools. They had NCEA achievement rates of 63 percent at level 1, 72 percent at level 2 and 73 percent at level 3. Achievement rates for all students in the comparator group of English-medium schools were 54, 66 and 61 percent and for Māori students in those schools the rates were 50, 64 and 56 percent. Wright said the consultation process, which closes 15 September, is a very short window to pull together a high quality meaningful response to the governments proposal. "The minister and the prime minister have said themselves that they want to get something in place before the end of the year so it just means that we all have to be on our game and get our submissions together quickly." The proposed NCEA replacement was a monocultural, Eurocentric approach to education, he said. "The process of education that they're still insisting on foisting upon us is that of a mono-cultural Eurocentric education system which has been in place in the country for 269 years. It has not worked for thousands of Māori and Pasifika students, why on earth would they think these changes are going to make any significant difference to that."
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Fiji's anti-corruption watchdog charges top prosecutor, initiates extradition proceedings
Fiji's suspended chief prosecutor, New Zealander Christopher Pryde Photo: Christopher Pryde Fiji's anti-corruption watchdog has charged the country's top prosecutor, who is in self-imposed exile in New Zealand, with corruption. The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has also initiated "extradition proceedings" against New Zealander Christopher Pryde. In a press statement on Tuesday, FICAC said Pryde had been charged in absentia on three counts by the Suva Magistrates Court. FICAC claims that while serving as director of Office of Public Prosecutions, Pryde "approved and received" approximately NZ$102,000 without obtaining the necessary approvals from the President's Office and the Judicial Services Commission. "He is charged with causing a loss, on the basis that he dishonestly caused financial loss to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions by accepting these unauthorised payments." FICAC said Pryde faces a second count of abuse of office for allegedly approving and receiving eight reimbursements for airfares for his wife and child (worth approximately NZ$35,000), and has been charged with obtaining a financial advantage by knowingly receiving payments to which he was not entitled. The anti-corruption office is also alleging that, on or about 16 September 2022, Pryde was reimbursed almost NZ$6000 for unused air tickets by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It alleged that, although the airline refunded him directly, he failed to return the amount. The court has adjourned the case to 15 September for an update on the status of the extradition process. Pryde had been reinstated to the role in January of this year following a 21-month suspension. In a statement to reporters, Pryde said he is "dismayed" at FICAC's decision "without giving me the right to speak in my defence". "This is a clear violation of my civil and constitutional rights. I categorically deny any wrongdoing," he said. "The decision by FICAC to charge me in absentia lead me to the conclusion that there is a concerted effort to keep me out of Fiji and prevent me from resuming my duties as the Director of Public Prosecutions." Earlier this year, Pryde had written to Foreign Minister Winston Peters to intervene in his case after his salary was cut of by the Fiji government. Pryde is a New Zealand citizen and held Fiji's top prosecutor position from 2011. He was suspended in April 2023, midway into his seven-year contract, over allegations of misconduct. A three-judge Tribunal appointed by the President later cleared him of any wrongdoin, and reinstated on 7 January. However, just two days after this reinstatement, his deputy - who had been serving as the acting director public prosecutions - filed a fresh complaint against him with FICAC. Pryde maintains his innocence and says he has not returned to Fiji because he has not received assurance by the Judicial Services Commission that they would not suspend him upon his return. "And I would be forced to, once again, defend myself whilst being deprived of my income".
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Government forges ahead with foreshore and seabed law
Paul Goldsmith has welcomed Cabinet's move to press ahead with the law change. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
