Selwyn Water company 'continues local ownership, prevents privatisation'
Photo:
RNZ / Nate McKinnon
Selwyn District Council has become the first in the country to establish a company to manage water and wastewater.
Selwyn Water Limited was set up at a cost of $2 million under the government's Local Water Done Well legislation, which let councils create entities that could borrow more than councils were able to on their own.
It would provide drinking and wastewater services to about 30,000 households and more than 8000 businesses.
Selwyn Mayor Sam Broughton was joined by Local Government Minister Simon Watts and Selwyn MP Nicola Grigg at a formal launch event at the Pines Wastewater Treatment Plant on Tuesday.
Photo:
RNZ / Nate McKinnon
Broughton said it was a milestone for the district and would future-proof its water infrastructure.
"A stand-alone CCO [council controlled organisation] to manage our water and wastewater means we have continued local ownership, prevents the privatisation of our water assets, it means we think about a long-term future and brings in governance excellence to the management of our water," he said.
The council voted for the model in April, despite about 87 percent of 424 public submissions against the proposal and in favour of keeping water services in-house.
Broughton said public conerns about potential higher costs and reduced local control had been addressed.
"We take all community feedback really seriously, we had hearings, we had people come and talk to us about what they had written down and during that process it became really clear the community congratulated us as a district for the investment that had already been made and that was part of the reason; 'why change it because you're already successful now'," he said.
"Another key factor was that people were scared of privatisation, so we've made sure that has been dealt with too and the primary legislation meant that that couldn't happen as well. The continued local ownership and influence for the community is also taken account in the set-up because this isn't a separation for the community. Selwyn Water will continue to hear from our community to be a part of future decisions."
Photo:
RNZ / Nate McKinnon
Water charges were expected to be higher for ratepayers initially because of set up costs but cheaper after about 10 years.
"We put aside $2 million to set up the CCO and that has been paid for and some of that will be repaid through water charges. Our water charges in Selwyn have always been separate from rates and capital values of properties so that will continue with the new organisation being set up," Broughton said.
"Anything we do with water needs to be done sensibly and thinking not just about today but for the generations to come as well."
An average 14.2 per cent rates rise took effect for Selwyn ratepayers from July.
The council said an in-house model would limit its ability to borrow for large-scale infrastructure projects needed to support Selwyn's rapid growth.
Photo:
RNZ / Nate McKinnon
The CCO had the ability to borrow up to 500 percent of its revenue through the Local Government Funding Agency, compared to the 280 percent cap for councils managing water in-house, it said.
Local Government Minister Simon Watts said the launch of Selwyn district's water service entity marked a significant milestone of water reform.
The council was the the first to get its plan approved by the government ahead of the national deadline on 3 September.
"I look forward to seeing similar Local Water Done Well plans progress in the coming months," Watts said.
"Selwyn District has demonstrated it has a financially sustainable plan for the delivery of water services that meet health, quality, and environmental standards, along with community expectations.
"I will be watching with interest how Selwyn Water manages the projected price increases for consumers during the initial years of their plan. I expect the Commerce Commission, as the economic regulator, will closely monitor to ensure the delivery of forecast levels of capital investment, justify the price."
Over the next six months, the council would transfer relevant assets, staff, and systems to Selwyn Water. Stormwater services would remain managed in-house by the council.
Photo:
RNZ / Nate McKinnon
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
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
'Brought to its knees': Why NZ can't shake the recession
Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King New Zealanders were told to "survive til '25" for the economy to pick up - but now one major bank economist says it's probably going to be 2026 before any real improvement happens. Kiwibank's latest Annual Regional Note shows small improvements across the country, but weak scores overall. The national average score has lifted from three out of 10 to four. Southland and Otago top the table at five. Otago was boosted by a recovery in international tourism and improvement in employment. Northland, Taranaki and Gisborne went backwards. Taranaki had the biggest fall in employment of anywhere in the country, at 8 percent. Northland reported a double-digit drop in building consents. Retail sales remain below their average levels over the past decade in most regions, as weak household confidence weighs on consumption. Kiwibank said Wellington recorded the steepest annual decline at a -3.3 percent, while regions like Waikato, Northland and the Bay of Plenty experienced a slight improvement on last year. Wellington's score improved from a two out of 10 to a three out of 10 while Auckland lifted from a three to four. "Wellington is just more pessimistic," Kiwibank chief economist Jarrod Kerr said. "It's gone through a lot in recent years. You can see it in their activity, you can see it in the housing market. You can see it in the economy, the city has been brought to its knees and it's been struggling to shake the pessimistic vibe." He said both Auckland and Wellington were well below average. "If you look across the regions, some of them have gone backwards and others are improving but it's not good. "When you look at the South Island things are better, people are definitely more optimistic in the South Island but even then the top scoring regions get a five out of 10." He said the report helped solidify the view that rate cuts to date had not been enough to turn around the economy. "We're really crawling out of this recession rather than regaining our footing and looking to grow from here. We're still struggling across the entire country." He said Kiwibank customers last year had talked about needing to hold on until this year. "We are halfway through the year and, yes, things are better but only by a little bit." New Zealand was worse off than Australia, he said. "Their economy is much stronger than ours but in their terms it's soft… where everything washes out is the labour market and, you know, the unemployment rate tells you a lot. Our unemployment rate is over 5 percent and theirs is pretty close to 4 percent." Part of the reason was the more aggressive interest rate hikes from the Reserve Bank, he said. "We were much more aggressive in our rate hikes than in Australia. We were much more aggressive on inflation than across the Tasman. "I think both the RBA and RBNZ made mistakes as I think every central bank did through the Covid period, we overstimulated in hindsight but at the time it was the right thing to do. And then we had to deal with the inflation problem." He said the Reserve Bank had kept the official cash rate at 5.5 percent for too long as it worked to tackle inflation. "We had a really bad recession last year, which the Reserve Bank openly orchestrated, they said 'look, we need a recession to get inflation back down'. The Australians didn't orchestrate a recession, they didn't slam the economy into the floor." Kerr said recovery was still coming but he had hoped it would have started more obviously by now. "We're hoping it takes off in the second half of this year as more and more people refix on to lower rates. Then it's more of a 2026 story now."
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Is there any way to make a pre-nup 100 percent certain?
RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Send your questions to I've heard various people and sources say that there is no sure way to protect your assets from a partner after three years as a partner can claim unfairness or something similar. Is this true? Some people say a trust can sometimes be broken and pre-nups sometimes don't hold up. Is there any 100 percent certain way to protect your assets before going into a relationship over three years? Sorry, it's probably true that there's no 100 percent way to protect your assets. People often sign a contracting out agreement if they want their relationship property to be treated differently to the way that the law directs. But you're right that this is open to challenge, particularly if it can be argued that the arrangement is unfair. Bill Atkin, emeritus professor in Victoria University's faculty of law, said this was true of any contract and would depend on the circumstances. "The test for the court to set aside an agreement is where 'giving effect to the agreement would cause serious injustice'. There are other factors taken into account including the desire for certainty. It is not common for a contract to be set aside unless, for example, there has been some improper dealings in getting a party to sign. On the other hand, a contract entered into many years ago may turn out to be unreasonable in the light of what has happened in the meantime. To allow no leeway for setting contracts aside would be unfair." A contract must follow the formalities set out in the Property (Relationships) Act. Atkin said the main one that must be remembered was that both parties must have independent legal advice. "Failure to do this will of course meant that the contract is on the face of it invalid." Nicola Peart, University of Otago law professor, said a contracting out agreement was still a good way of protecting your assets, even if it was not ironclad. "Assuming the agreement was made with full information and independent legal advice, it can still be challenged if it was seriously unjust at the time or has become seriously unjust at a later point in time." And this is me talking - this is probably a good thing, overall. If you're living together as a couple and your circumstances change, it's reasonable that what was fair at the outset might no longer be. It's a good idea to get your own legal advice about your individual circumstances. We are currently settling an estate. The deceased had a credit card to a third-party lender, a Q Card, not a Q MasterCard. I cannot find any mention of estate obligations should the holder die, which I have seen with other credit cards. Does this mean the estate is not obligated to pay the bill? Michelle Pope, a principal trustee at Public Trust said generally, if a credit card account was held only in the name of the person who died, it would become a debt of the estate, to be paid from their assets. "However, if the account was in joint names, the responsibility for the debt usually passes to the surviving account holder. We're assuming the lender has already been contacted and the terms and conditions have been reviewed. If those terms don't specify what happens when someone dies, then the debt would usually be treated as one that needs to be settled." In 2007, I separated from my ex-husband and started a relationship with my new partner. He said to me that he had put his property and business into a trust so no other partners could get any of his property. I was OK with that because I felt going forward he would look after me if I became his wife and the mother of his children. Fast forward to 2016 I received $135,000 from my mum's inheritance and 2018/2019 $130,000 from dad. We had been renovating this beautiful 100-year-old house and property in which we used my inheritance to renovate it. I was happy as this was our family home and it was lovely, until 2020 when he started an affair and we separated. Do you have any suggestions on how I can get my inheritances recognized in our financial settlement case? Peart says there is a pathway ruling on general equitable principles, in particular the "constructive trust", which has been used to compensate former partners who have made substantial contributions to assets held in a trust where the court is satisfied that she had a reasonable expectation that she would share in the value of her contributions and it is reasonable for the trustees to yield an interest. She said, if you were married, section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act could be a way to get a settlement. This covers the court making orders relating to property. But she said the opportunity for a court to intervene in nuptial settlements and do something for a spouse who was not getting anything was not available to people who were de facto. "She may well be able to rely on general equitable principles, in particular the constructive trust, for an order that the trustees of the trust hold a share of the home on trust for her on the basis of contributions made to the property and a reasonable expectation that those contributions would result in some share of the property. "Aside from that, I wonder whether she was advised by whoever was handling her parents' estates about the risks of losing her entitlements if she used it to renovate the family home. In this case, the risk was even greater, because the family home was in trust. "This highlights the risks involved with commingling an inheritance with relationship property . As discussed last week, to be kept separate, an inheritance needs to be held apart from other property. "An inheritance is separate property under the PRA, but once it is intermingled with relationship property or invested in the family home, it becomes relationship property and is subject to the equal sharing regime," Peart said. "Lawyers advising on distribution of estates commonly give advice about that to the beneficiaries of the estate to make sure they realise the risks of not keeping the inheritance separate." Atkin said any property owned by a trust would not be divided under the act. "There are some exceptions, where the trust ownership may be factored in, for example where the trust is a sham or where one of the parties has so much control under the Act that they are treated as having an interest that can be divided. "Also, in some situations there may be compensation where relationship property, such as the home, has been transferred to a trust during the relationship. There are other points here but, in short, the relevant law where there is a trust is complex and not consistent. The Law Commission has accepted that the law needs to be reformed but the government has shown no signs so far of implementing the Law Commission's recommendations. "Now, what about the inheritance? There is no direct way under the Act of recognising the inheritance. Any claim would be against the trust. If the inheritance money had been packaged as a loan to the trust, then the trust would be in debt to the person who lent the money. However, most people in relationships are unlikely to think about doing this. Another possibility is that the heir can make a claim under laws that apply generally, not just to relationships. A genuine possibility is to claim what the law calls a constructive trust in relation to the formal trust. The latter would have to account for the contribution made by way of the inheritance but success here is by no means guaranteed and what the value of a constructive trust would be is subject to all the factors in the case. Legal advice would be needed and one would hope that a satisfactory negotiated settlement can be reached with the trustees. Trouble is that the ex may well be one of the trustees and may play hard to get."
Newsroom
19 hours ago
- Newsroom
Climate Commission delivers inconvenient truths to Govt
Analysis: Climate policy is in many ways one of the most wickedly complex areas of government. The workings of the Emissions Trading Scheme, aligning scientific findings about difference greenhouse gases or climate impacts with policy design and even just measuring emissions from a cow can all be embroiled in subjective, heated debates. On occasion, though, it can be as simple as basic arithmetic. That's where the Climate Change Commission has landed with its progress report on the Government's climate policies, released early Friday before markets opened. Chief executive Jo Hendy tells Newsroom it's the commission's first chance to 'run the ruler' over the Government's climate plan, released in December. It's only the second-ever progress report, with last year's version having mostly evaluated then-cancelled Labour policies because the Government hadn't yet announced its own approach. While a lot of complex analysis underpins the independent watchdog's findings, the headline information is the result of a simple adding up exercise that effectively cuts through the Government's spin on how ambitious its climate plan really is. New Zealand is on track to meet the first five-yearly emissions budget – here, the commission agrees with the Government. The rest of the picture looks far less rosy. For the second budget, covering 2026 to 2030, there are moderate to significant delivery risks – and much greater ones than featured in last year's report. The Government's own projections leave it with just a couple million tonnes of headroom, which could easily be wiped out by a dry year prompting the burning of Huntly's coal stockpile, a wildfire or big storm destroying a large enough forestry block or the failure of the already shaky carbon capture policy. The real concern comes for the third budget and the 2050 net zero target, where again the delivery risks have grown. 'Current plans are insufficient to meet the third budget and further action is required. There are also significant risks for meeting the 2050 target unless further action is taken,' the commission writes. The Government's projections show it still has to cut emissions by over nine million tonnes over the third budget period. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says the Government will sort out how to do so in its third emissions reduction plan in 2029 (a point by which he also presumably hopes to no longer be responsible for sorting that out), the commission says that leaves it too late. Watts' current climate plan cuts emissions by just 3.3 million tonnes in the second budget period and he's already pretty confident that's everything the Government can do. (The commission, for what it's worth, has found tens of millions of tonnes of additional cuts that a sufficiently motivated government could implement.) How, then, is a future government to nearly triple that total with a plan in 2029? 'The Government needs to act ahead of the next emissions reduction plan (due in 2029) as many options that would make a difference will take time to take effect. For example, New Zealand Steel's electric arc furnace took three years to progress from funding approval to operation,' the commission insists. Fortunately, the commission finds there are significant opportunities for the Government to make up the difference if it starts now. There are nearly 20 million tonnes of cuts New Zealand could achieve in the third budget period through fixing up the Emissions Trading Scheme and implementing additional targeted policies. Agricultural and power generation emissions alone could fall by enough to plug the gap through regulatory reforms and incentives for uptakes of new technologies. 'This isn't just about hitting a number on an emissions reduction target, it's also about doing it well so that we cut energy costs, create those new jobs, protect market access and ultimately it's about our competitiveness and resilience as a country – as well as making that better future for our kids,' Hendy says. The ball is now in Watts' court, but don't expect him to do much with it. The commission returns repeatedly in this report to another issue that Watts is sitting on: Whether the budgets actually need to be revised to be more ambitious, as it recommended last year. In brief, the commission found last year that accounting changes for how we measure the emissions of cows, cars and other greenhouse gas sources mean it will now be easier to meet the budgets. Those changes don't represent real action New Zealand has taken. If we wanted to preserve the original ambition the budgets represented when they were set in 2022, the commission reported, we would need to revise them downwards. Because those new recommended budgets are still on Watts' desk, the majority of the commission's report today checks progress against the existing targets. However, it does also note at points how much additional effort would be needed to meet its recommended budgets. For the second emissions budget, that would be another 15 million tonnes of cuts over the second half of the 2020s. For the third budget, another 18 million tonnes on top of that. Collectively, the revisions represent about half of New Zealand's annual gross emissions – or more than 30 times the reductions the Government claims will arise from its carbon capture policy. While there are some subjective inputs to these calculations by the commission, the bulk of it comes down to hard maths. Or, as Watts might label it, an inconvenient truth.
