Marlborough Residents Speak Against Council's Preferred Water Plan
Residents have spoken against the Marlborough District Council's preferred water services model at a Local Water Done Well hearing on Monday.
The Government requires councils to choose from five water service delivery options a modified status quo (an in-house council department), a single council-controlled organisation, a multi-council-controlled organisation, and two types of trusts.
The Marlborough District Council's preferred option is to create a standalone Water Services Organisation owned and controlled by the council.
The council said it would find greater efficiencies to deliver better service at a lower cost, and have more borrowing capacity to maintain and improve the region's water infrastructure.
But Marlborough residents aren't convinced. Of about 45 submissions made, 58 percent wanted to keep water services in-house, compared to 13 percent who preferred the standalone organisation. The remainder did not indicate a preference.
Five people spoke on their submissions at a hearing in the council chamber on Monday, and they were all opposed to a standalone organisation.
Brendan Kearney, who used to be chief financial officer of a council-controlled organisation in Canterbury, said there was no proof that a separate organisation would be more efficient, and setting up and funding a separate entity could cost ratepayers more.
It would "inevitably duplicate some overhead costs", Kearney said.
He said he saw no reason for water services to be removed from a council that had maintained its water systems relatively well.
"[Water] assets are in good or very good condition. That's a credit to the current council and past councils as well. Council also has low debt relative to its peers.
"This is compelling evidence, in my view, that the council has performed well and will continue to do so."
To create a separate organisation, Kearney said the council would need to appoint directors, manage a new relationship with the organisation, and manage the organisation's own agenda.
"A standalone company is no guarantee of good governance."
Kearney said there also needed to be balance in who footed the water infrastructure bill between the ratepayers of today and of tomorrow.
"It's unfair to gift hundreds of millions of dollars ... to the next generations completely debt free. That means the past generations paid too much.
"On the other hand, it's unfair to get those assets, billions of dollars of assets, fully debt funded ... it's unfair on future generations.
"Something in between those two extremes needs to happen."
Submitter Lauchy Hynd said that creating a separate organisation to take on debt outside the council books was not sustainable.
"What happens when we default?" Hynd said. "We're leveraging [water assets] by three to five times to borrow money against them.
"This looks to me like Three Waters from the back door.
"You can kick the can down the road and borrow recklessly, but I appeal to you to act boldly on behalf of the people."
Submitters also voiced concerns about allowing an unelected and "unaccountable" organisation to take control of water services.
"How do we maintain the ownership and the status of [water] assets in the hands of the people of Marlborough, when we're divesting them to an unelected group?" Hynd said.
Submitter Bob Watson said he was worried about the potential to more easily privatise a separate organisation, pointing how the United Kingdom's water management became privatised.
Ten regional water authorities were formed in 1974, which the UK government then sold to the private sector in 1989.
"I think that the potential for private ownership ... basically our water utilities to be sold off to another entity, and for us to lose the democratic voice, would be terrible," Watson said.
"I like the idea that [we're] here with people that have represented the community who can speak for us."
The coalition Government had previously said that privatisation of water services was not on the table.
The council would make its final decision on water services delivery on June 26, and submit its plan to the Government for approval by 3 September .
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
Scoop
42 minutes ago
- Scoop
New Zealand Announces Further Aid For Ukraine
Rt Hon Christopher Luxon Prime Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters Minister of Foreign Affairs Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters have announced a new $16 million package of support for Ukraine ahead of this week's NATO Summit in the Hague. 'New Zealand stands in solidarity with Ukraine. Its war of self-defence is well into its fourth year and our condemnation of Russia's illegal full-scale invasion remains undiminished,' Mr Luxon says. New Zealand's will make $4 million contributions to two multi-national funds providing lethal and non-lethal military assistance for Ukraine: the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) fund; and the United Kingdom and Latvia-led Drone Coalition for Ukraine. 'The defence of Ukraine has significant implications not only for the security of the Euro-Atlantic, but also for the Indo-Pacific,' Mr Peters says. 'We must continue to work with others in the international community to uphold a rules-based order that serves all our interests.' New Zealand will also provide $7 million in further humanitarian assistance for conflict affected communities in Ukraine, and $1 million for Ukrainians displaced in neighbouring countries. 'The scale of need remains vast, as Russia continues its bombardment of densely populated civilian areas of Ukraine,' Mr Luxon says. This support package follows the recently announced sanctions targeting Russia's 'shadow fleet' and other enablers of Russia's war in Ukraine. 'It is vital the international community maintains pressure on Russia to end its war and engage meaningfully with efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine,' Mr Peters says. More information about diplomatic, military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine, as well as sanctions, travel bans, and export controls against Russia, can be found on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website here. Notes: The Government has implemented the following actions in response to Russia's war against Ukraine: · Passed the historic Russia Sanctions Act under which we have implemented sanctions targeting: o Vladimir Putin and key members of his inner circle. o Senior leadership of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. o All 620 members of the Russian parliament (State Duma and Federation Council). o All Russian Ministers and Governors. o More than 400 entities including state-owned enterprises, entities that are part of Russia's military industrial complex, Donbas militia groups, and Belarusian defence entities. o More than 110 oligarchs and immediate family with close ties and influence with the Russian Government. o 20 financial institutions, including Russia's Central Bank o 7 Belarusian financial institutions. o 56 individuals and entities involved in disinformation and cyber-attacks on Ukraine. o 15 members of the Central Election Commission. o Almost 100 Russian-directed leaders in occupied Ukrainian regions. o The Commissioner for Children's Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation. o 23 Iranian individuals and 17 Iranian entities for supplying drones to Russia. o Individuals and entities involved in the supply of DPRK military materiel to Russia for use in Ukraine. · Banned all Russian and Belarusian Government and military aircraft and vessels from New Zealand. · Banned exports to Russian and Belarusian military and security forces. · Suspended bilateral Foreign Ministry Consultations with Russia. · Endorsed the UK-initiated Call to Action on the 'shadow fleet' engaged in sanctions circumvention by carrying Russian oil and gas. The Call to Action promotes compliance with international standards for maritime safety, environmental protection, and insurance. Trade measures · Implemented a 35% tariff on all Russian imports to New Zealand. · Banned the import of Russian gold into New Zealand. · Significantly expanded the export ban on Russia and Belarus to cover more industrial products of strategic importance (by adding more than 700 new prohibited tariff lines). · Banned the import of Russian oil, gas, and coal. · Banned the export of oil exploration and oil production goods to Russia. · Banned the import from and export to Russia of certain luxury goods. · Implemented the G7-plus oil price cap on Russian-origin oil. Other assistance to Ukraine · Since the full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022, New Zealand has pledged over $168 million in financial assistance and in-kind support to Ukraine in the face of Russia's invasion. That includes: o support for military training, equipment, and materiel valued at $110.3 million, including up to 100 NZDF personnel deployed to Europe. o $39.9 million in humanitarian assistance to conflict-affected Ukrainian communities in Ukraine and in neighbouring countries. o $6 million in support for recovery and reconstruction. o $5.2 million in support for international legal processes and human rights monitoring.
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Cabinet frets over funding for Māori foreshore claims
Public funding for Māori claims to rights over areas of coastline could face further tightening, despite blunt cuts in 2024 being found to have seriously breached the Treaty of Waitangi. Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says the $13m set aside in this year's Budget followed a potential blowout a year ago to $30m – but a coming wave of court hearings and direct negotiations still presents problems for the Government. He has told MPs the Government is now 'turning our mind to the whole framework to see if there's a better way' to arrange financial support for resolving claims under the Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Act. The last cuts for 2024/25 put caps on funding, reduced claimants' lawyers maximum pay rates to those in the legal aid system and forced some to cover the work pro bono (for free) to keep hearings going. Cabinet refused the projected additional funding despite Goldsmith and Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka recommending a further $19m to cover the claimant costs for that year. The Waitangi Tribunal found the way the funding limits were imposed last year breached the Treaty by insufficient consultation, prejudice to the cases before the courts and lacked analysis of legal or treaty implications. It said there are hundreds of court claims and also hundreds of bids for direct negotiations to come, but the direct negotiations had essentially never started and had little chance without funding. The cuts caused 'confusion and disruption to scheduled hearings.' The increase in costs should have been predictable for both past and present governments and officials because Māori had entered the legal process years ago, building cases towards High Court hearings. Preparing for and appearing in court cases was a higher cost than initial research and interlocutory phases. Those cases were starting to hit the courts as part of the normal progression of legal action. 'The escalation of hearings in the High Court is a natural consequence of the Crown's regime, the number of applications filed and the High Court fulfilling its judicial function of determining applications before it.' The $12m in applicant funding for 2024/25 was 'demonstrably insufficient'. Separately the Government introduced a bill in 2024 to amend the MACA Act to tighten criteria by which iwi, hapū and whānau can prove continuous, exclusive use under tikanga (custom) of coastline and waters since 1840. The amending bill would send unresolved court cases for Customary Marine Title (CMT) back to the High Court for re-hearing under its new provisions. In parallel, the Supreme Court set out alternative criteria in a November judgment which would also tighten possibilities of successful claims, and that has seen the Cabinet put the amending law on hold for seven months so it can decide which way to proceed. When Goldsmith appeared before Parliament's Māori affairs select committee as part of Scrutiny Week, MPs quizzed him on the Government's response to the Supreme Court decision, the fate of its amendment bill and its view on the Waitangi Tribunal criticism over the funding cuts. Green MP Steve Abel suggested the now stalled amendment bill would have worsened Goldsmith's budget problem over funding claims under the MACA Act because it would make Māori go back to court for repeated hearings, with a big double-up in costs. The minister answered: 'Based on the legislation we had introduced there was going to be a cost to potentially rehear elements of cases that were underway. The Government is still considering that. 'There's going to be an extra cost and we recognised that but our view was that those costs were justified.' He told Labour's Ginny Andersen the primary budget pressure point for the Government for agency Te Tari Whakatau (successor of Arawhiti – the Office of Crown Māori relations) was 'the payments for claimants for Takutai Moana. The demand is high and our ability to meet the demand is constrained.' Andersen asked if the cost blowout calculated in 2024 impacted the decisions the coalition took in pushing the MACA amendment bill. 'No, we felt the Court of Appeal had come up with a threshold materially different from what the Parliament had expected. 'The cost of the process we are going through at the moment is very high. The first step was to put some budgetary restraint around that as part of a much broader restraint government-wide.' The Waitangi Tribunal's findings on the cuts to the MACA Act funding scheme said 'the Crown does not suggest that the increase in costs incurred by applicant groups weren't actual or reasonable. 'When we consider the claims in this context, we acknowledge that this is an expensive regime. However it is the regime the Crown created. Māori have participated in the regime in good faith. 'The Crown accepts their costs have not been unreasonable. The Crown is concerned that its own regime costs more that it would like, a problem not caused by the applicants.' Despite this the $12m budget amount in 2024 was around 38 percent of what was projected for that financial year. 'Cabinet offered no reason for this decision. There is no evidence that Cabinet undertook a Treaty-compliant balancing exercise as part of this decision. 'This context highlights the serious nature of the [Treaty] breaches by the Crown. 'We find that the Crown has not acted reasonably or in good faith. It has not actively protected Māori interests in relation to this important taonga and not exercised good government.' The tribunal report said funding caps and lawyer rates could prejudice claimants by raising the risk senior counsel walked away from helping. 'We are extremely concerned at such a rudimentary approach being taken to applicant funding under the Act.' In another part of the report, tribunal members observe: 'The only inference we can draw is that this was a purely fiscal decision, but one made without any evidence that the additional funding would affect the economy, not any apparent consideration of how it would impact Māori rights and interests. 'This is not a Treaty-compliant balancing exercise,' the wrote, then concluding the Crown's decision 'breached the principles of partnership, good government, and active protection.' Tribunal members seemed perplexed at how the former Te Arawhiti officials had been unable to anticipate – even though it should have known in 2021 and 2022 – the surge in claimant costs as MACA Act claims moved to the court action phase. 'The Crown should have been on notice from this point that the High Court pathway was gathering momentum which would likely result in a significant increase in demand on the funding scheme.' The agency also had a significantly flawed modelling system to calculate how much would be needed each month, ignoring that some claimants would be involved in more than one case with overlapping Takutai Moana interests. The late identification of the problem had a significant impact, the report says, and the time pressure it put officials under in 2024 'was created by the Crown failing to properly identify earlier the growing pressure on the funding scheme.' The tribunal reiterated its concern over the lack of progress on the alternative Crown Engagement Pathway, in which 387 applications across 20 different coastline areas seek direct negotiations with ministers via Te Tari Whakatau. There has been no successful determination over the years and no chance now for applicants to seek financial assistance 'The Crown Engagement Pathway is effectively suspended at present.' It had advice for the Government for future funding decisions: 'When making decisions, the Crown cannot only consider fiscal matters. It must also consider, in good faith, Māori interests and the potential impacts of any decisions on Māori. 'Such decisions should not be made in isolation.'
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Don't Steal The Super South's Last Govt Head Office
Press Release – Dr Colin Meurk ONZM Unless the South Island leaders stand up to be heard on this issue now, the govt will get away with further undermining balanced and shared regional development that is resilient and supports meaningful, respectful nationhood, says Dr Colin Meurk … 'Time is running out.' That from one of Aotearoa's leading ecologists and environmental academics, Dr Colin Meurk ONZM. Dr Meurk has written to MPs, iwi contacts, academics, and local Councillors, highlighting dire consequences of losing the last Government head offices to the North Island. 'In mid-March, Government announced that the Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) will be amalgamated into three new Public Research Organisations (PROs) by early October. It's clear that there's lobbying to get the head offices located in the 'golden triangle' (Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton). This seems to be confirmed by an evasive answer to a recent question at Parliament during Scrutiny Week, related to where the headquarters will be,' he says. The amalgamation of Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research, Plant & Food, Scion and AgResearch into the so-called Bioeconomy PRO, officially commences on July 1st. Currently, the head offices of Manaaki Whenua and AgResearch are located in Lincoln near Christchurch, but the CEOs of those organisations and other Government science advisors all reside in the North Island. 'Removing our last head offices is just not on and would be a symbolic kick in the guts for the South Island,' says Dr Meurk. 'Te Waipounamu is thriving and a key part of the national representation of bioscience and agriculture. Not having a head office here in the South will negatively affect our status, voice, career pathways, and importance as well as the strength and resilience of the overall sector, nationally, not to mention the administrative funding into the local economy which will be shredded from local offices of the new PRO.' Dr Meurk says that it's misguided for a Minister of Science and Innovation, Dr Shane Reti, to state that the amalgamation is designed to 'maximise the value of Government funding and drive economic growth'. Business as usual is almost certainly unfit for looming crises that will demand critical, multi-lensed, outside-the-square science and innovation. 'I see this as continued hollowing out of the South Island,' he says. 'The south is experiencing unprecedented growth and popularity, yet government is failing to grasp the opportunities in our unique public research sector and leadership that is already well-established at Lincoln and the wider region. Climate and geo-tectonic risk, especially up north, demands government infrastructure be regionally spread; we must not put all our governance eggs in one basket.' 'Our Prime Minister is in China right now promoting Aotearoa as a place for students including agricultural students, to study. It seems totally counter-intuitive that the last head office here should be disconnected from the centre of New Zealand's agricultural and tourism enterprise, and our affordable living,' says Meurk. 'I'm somewhat surprised that South Island leaders have not voiced more concern. Unless they stand up to be heard on this issue now, the government will get away with further undermining balanced and shared regional development that is resilient and supports meaningful, respectful nationhood,' he says. Dr Meurk ONZM is standing in the 2025 local body elections for Environment Canterbury in Ōpuna – Christchurch West Additional Over the past 33 years, the South Island had at least two central Government Head Offices (HO) – for Crop & Food and Landcare Research CRIs. A decade or so ago, Crop & Food was amalgamated with Hort Research to form Plant & Food, and their head office was moved to Hamilton/Auckland. Meanwhile, AgResearch's head office was moved to Lincoln. In mid-March the Government announced that the Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) will amalgamate four Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) to form three new and more focused Public Research Organisations (PROs) in early October. Legislation to formally establish the PROs will follow in 2026. There are plans underway to locate the head office to Hamilton, likely supported by Plant & Food, the CEO of Landcare Research, the interim chief of the PRO, and Sir Peter Gluckman (key Science advisor to Government) who are all based in the North Island. 'The cards are stacked to further hollow out the South unless concerted joint pressure is exerted by Councils and Iwi of the South.' Colin Meurk Lincoln University This unique University has experienced significant growth in student numbers over the past few years. In 2025, Lincoln is ranked within the top 25% of universities globally in the QS World University Rankings. Specific numbers for qualifications conferred show a 22% increase in 2025, with 1,613 qualifications conferred compared to 1,320 in 2024. In 2024, numbers exceeded 5,000 students for the first time. This was a 21% increase in student headcount in 2024 compared to 2023. The university's strong performance is attributed to a robust portfolio of relevant research. Research Income: External research income has increased, rising by 8% to $35 million. Factors Contributing to Growth: Lincoln University's growth is linked to its focus on land-based and environmental subjects, strong industry connections, and high graduate employment rates, which are currently at 84%, according to The Press. Vice-Chancellor Professor Grant Edwards has said that the strong growth signals Lincoln University's increasing influence in shaping the future of the land-based sectors in Aotearoa and globally. Canterbury University In the top 1% of world universities. Student numbers approaching 25 000 and upsurge in overseas students.
