sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Nathan Cooper says with the Three Waters reforms under fire, let’s not forget that safe and affordable water is a human right

Public Policy / opinion
Nathan Cooper says with the Three Waters reforms under fire, let’s not forget that safe and affordable water is a human right
get1
Getty Images

By Nathan Cooper*

While ostensibly about improving New Zealand’s water infrastructure, the government’s proposed Three Waters reforms have instead become a lightning rod for political division and distrust.

Critics cite concerns about local democracy, de facto privatisation and co-governance with Māori as reasons to oppose the Water Services Entities Bill currently before parliament.

With the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch now proposing an alternative plan, the reforms may be far from a done deal.

But behind the debate lies an undeniable truth: clean water is a necessity of life. In fact, 20 years ago this month the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights first affirmed that water is a human right.

The anniversary is a timely reminder of what Aotearoa’s proposed water reforms are essentially about.

Covering drinking water, wastewater and stormwater (hence the “three waters” label), the reforms would have a wider remit than the human right to water. They fold in environmental and cultural considerations alongside public health concerns.

But the human right to water, as well as lessons learned from implementing that right, have important implications for the Three Waters debate, not least around water quality and affordability.

A fragile right

By acknowledging it to be a human right in 2002, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights argued water is indispensable for leading a dignified life and essential for other human rights.

Since then, the human right to water has been repeatedly declared, including by the UN General Assembly and the European Union.

This right is included in the constitutions and laws of numerous countries.

Despite this, 1 billion people still lack access to safe drinking water, and six out of ten people live with inadequate sanitation.

More than 2 billion people live in areas of water scarcity, likely to become an even bigger issue due to climate change.

The human right to water covers five essential factors:

  • access to enough water for drinking, personal sanitation, washing clothes, preparing food, personal and household hygiene

  • water that is clean and won’t cause harm

  • the look and smell of water should be acceptable

  • water sources should be within easy reach and accessible without danger

  • the cost should be low enough to ensure everyone can buy enough water to meet their needs.

The anti-government protest movement Voices for Freedom has added Three Waters to its list of grievances. Getty Images

Internationally, there is evidence the adoption of a human right to water has made a difference. In South Africa, where access to sufficient water is a constitutional right, the courts have repeatedly referred to the human right to water when determining government obligations around water services.

In 2014, the first European Citizens’ Initiative pushed the European Union to exclude water supply and water resources management from the rules governing the European internal market. This means EU citizens have a stronger voice in water governance decisions.

In 2016, Slovenia became the first EU country to make access to drinkable water a fundamental right in its constitution.

New Zealand’s Three Waters reforms are not unrelated to these basic issues of safety, accessibility and affordability. They aim to address significant problems with the country’s existing water services model, including ageing infrastructure, historical under-investment, the need for climate change resilience, and rising consumer demand.

These all require a serious program of water service transformation – one the government believes is beyond what local councils (which currently administer most water assets) will be able to deliver.

The projected cost is estimated at between NZ$120 billion and $185 billion (on top of currently planned investment), rolled out over the next 30 years.

Ambition and equity

One way or another, the work has to be done. Last year elevated lead levels were found in the water in east Otago. Ageing infrastructure and increasing demand are likely to increase the risk of similar incidents unless expensive upgrades are undertaken.

Without reform, the government argues, the huge cost of those upgrades will be unevenly spread across households, with a substantially higher burden on rural consumers.

To be affordable and equitable for everyone, therefore, the Three Waters plan involves creating four publicly owned, multi-regional entities. These will benefit from greater scale, expertise, operational efficiencies and financial flexibility compared to local councils.

But because councils could still contract out water services for 35 years, concerns have been raised about the potential for creeping privatisation. Indeed, similar concerns, including failed attempts to privatise water services in other countries, were a significant catalyst for asserting the human right to water more than two decades ago.

While international acknowledgment of water as a human right doesn’t automatically create binding obligations on New Zealand’s government, it can still inform the Three Waters debate.

Over the past 20 years, many of the benefits of this right have accrued from its ability to focus attention on securing high-quality and sustainable water services for everyone. That remains an essential ambition for New Zealand in 2022 and beyond.The Conversation


*Nathan Cooper, is Associate Professor of Law, University of WaikatoThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

64 Comments

New Zealand says no, collectively, loud and clear. Government needs to stop wasting money now. They are gone next year, this initiative is one of the reasons why. Whatever they do now (if anything) will be rolled back and cost more money.

Some regions have invested wisely in their water infrastructure. Others have not, lumping the good with the bad and making everyone worse off, is not a solution. 

Changing the local government act to force spending on water infrastructure instead of nice to haves to help councils get re-elected would be a good start. That mess was initiated by central government and gave the councils free range to spend money outside of their core responsibilities. That needs to be rolled back and would help solve whatever problem there is to solve.

Three waters is a dead duck. The planning was wrong, the promotion was awful and full of disinformation. They have lost the room completely. There is no coming back from there. Labour can force it through, but it means they will lose by more next year. 

It is that simple now.

Up
33

On one hand, I just can't see that a government that has IMO failed to deliver anything with the polytech merger can achieve anything useful in this space.

On the other hand, I'd love to see my local water supply improved beyond the following examples which are related to it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/113257745/more-than-20…

after Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) took them to court over discharges of dairy effluent and silage leachate into a tributary of the Mangatete Stream at Ōkato in April, May and June last year.

The Mangatete being the source of our drinking water.

and

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/441093/taranaki-aquifer-contaminate…

The regional council undertook an aerial search and questioned landowners in an effort to find the source of the contamination.

In December 2015, it also tested a nearby well at 5.5 metres deep, which accessed the same aquifer. It showed no detectable difenoconazole.

Soon after, it gave up the search for the source of the contamination.

In 2016, the district council decided not to use the aquifer as a water source.

After a large program of drilling to find a bore source to supplement our drinking water, it seems to have stopped. Years ago now. Yet the houses keep popping up and our local population keeps growing.

Up
9

The new mayor of Wellington loves the 3 waters reforms ... why ? ... because theirs is a frigging shambles , they haven't maintained & updated their infrastructure over the years , so they're happy for the rest of us to subsidise them in getting their shit together .... quite literally , it has been bubbling out of broken pipes & into some streets ...

... get stuffed Mahuta ! ... 

Up
14

It is getting tiresome in New Zealand reading articles by woke academics with no practical experience, who espouse the precepts of failed institutions like the United Nations.  New Zealand will become a failed country unless there is a complete rethink of the Marxist philosophy underpinning the academics at our universities, and in government.

Up
12

Nathan has recognised the issue in the very first sentence where he says 3 waters is "ostensibly" about improving water infrastructure in NZ

Really its about grabbing control as is clearly evident to those that look - and regardless of how the Govt try and say otherwise. 

The evidence is weak that the new structure will improve efficiency, quality or affordability. After all if we need to spend many billions, creating a new structure does not change the need to spend the money. Money which councils could rate or charge for, or borrow with Govt assistance/approval or even be provided from a govt pot  - without a transfer of assets, or handing control to iwi organisations

Finally where is the evidence that central Govt can do a better job providing this "fundamental" human right when they are already failing with a couple viz. getting kids to school and keeping us alive when we visit A&E

Up
23

This is an asset grab by the Government on behalf of iwi - plain and simple.

Just look at the co-governance rules that require a majority of the maori to vote in support of any decisions.

Thank you Ms Adern for handing over New Zealands assets. You did not get the mandate to do so.

Up
24

... get stuffed , Jacinda ! ... 

Up
8

Yes. Anti-democratic illiberal liberalism at its best. The 2020 election was a trojan horse for a slow motion coup d'etat. 

Up
5

The author starts by saying that drinking water is a human right.  

Then ends by saying that it needs "To be affordable and equitable for everyone".

So your human rights aren't equal when it comes to who pays for it!

I can't see how this is equitable for the people that have been paying for their water for a whole generation.  I can't remeber not paying for water.   

Up
6

“We have always said, that we’re not interested in owning the water assets. What we’re interested in is the proprietor rights over water, and that is a discussion to be had with the Crown, not with councils.” Tuku ("Underpants") Morgan, 3 Waters Working Group

Up
8

I recall reading that the Otago lead source was never conclusively identified and the council said it was likely to have come from pipes and fittings on private property. 
 

That aside, I implacably oppose the co-governance aspect and am appalled that the structure allows some councils to get away with historic under-funding. Socialism at its worst. 
 

Worst PM and Government in living memory.  

Up
15

I recall reading the same about the Otago lead issue.

Up
0

Three waters = three lies ?

No political party can get away with this, they will be voted out in short time.

Worst PM and Government in living memory indeed !

 

Up
12

I agree! its the worst PM and government of all time in NZ!!! Totally dishonest, Lie and have pushed through so many things that suit their agenda. Things that the people have not been consulted on or the very little input they have asked for has all been ignored.

Lets get honesty back as something we expect from our government.

Up
15

Sorry Nathan, but just gotta roll my eyes. 

3Waters via the Labour Government will still occasionally have adverse events.  eg Havelock eg Waikouaiti lead.  Big organisations still cock up. 

So why do it? It's a vehicle for co-governance, not better water.   Why else would you put Ngai Tahu in control of my local water given it's very bad, very determined, damage to water. 

It's not an organisation one should let anywhere near water.  

Want evidence?  Here is one.  It's aggressive attempts to impose dirty dairy and nitrates into water in the very fragile Hurunui district.  See the link

https://amp.rnz.co.nz/article/21a52ce5-5f34-413b-8ef2-71d6bbe4fc9a

Up
17

What I see is a lot of noise from a small group who through either political reasons or self interest don't like three waters.
Personally I'm in favour.

Up
6

The only conclusion anyone could make from your comment is that you are a half-wit!!!

Up
12

…..and a member of a very small club.

Up
10

Maybe I am and maybe you are the son of assisted passage white trash.

Up
1

"assisted passage white trash"

That's great. I will borrow that. My mother said our family was eligible for assisted passage but we declined the offer. She was quite proud about that. There were eight of us. That assisted passage is a remarkable example of white privilege that has largely been forgotten.

We came over on the Canberra. Assisted passage kids had to attend school while we played on the upper decks, eating club sandwiches and enjoying the swimming pool. Good times.

Up
4

kwbrn emerges as racist.  No surprise. 

Up
12

It is astonishing how anti-whiteness is totally acceptable across the web.

If someone had call him a shitskin, they would be banned. But attack white people and you are free to go.

Up
5

Yep. Definitely a half-wit!!!

Up
6

Half White... as in not full Maori?

Up
0

How do you see 3 waters benefiting South Auckland?

Up
5

We have subdivisions going in at Beachlands without proper water and a new subdivision at the Whitford village discharging its effluent into the Turanga estuary,

I sure it will be more benefit than the amalgamation by idiots Hyde and Ford where they stole our airport shares our pools and all our books migrates to Remuera.

 

Up
1

Read my post above kwbrn.  It justifies some views, and with reasoning. 

You offer some undermining off topic slurs.  (Self interest, political) but no reasoning.

Try an explanation sometime.  Or maybe you haven't got one. 

Up
10

Paula Bennett 1.8 million social media influence fund.

Up
0

It seems like there's a definite problem that needs solving.

However, the noise generated from the shit-fit as soon there's mention of Maori involvement makes it hard to determine how beneficial the change would be.

Overall it just leaves me convinced that the level of US-style partisanship infesting NZ politics means we'll end up voting in increasing levels of really poor populist governments.

Up
6

Yes, major problems that need addressing in many areas of the country.  The assets are liabilities to my mind given the enormity of under-funding (made so much worse by decades of too much population growth); the majority of Councils already operating at/near their capacity to borrow; and the number of crises popping up all over the place with aging pipes and plants.  And then, there's insurance issues associated with all this underground infrastructure now and going forward.

The governance model and local ownership has become the focus of the problem - when the real problem is more stuff individual communities can't afford to pay for while water quality and availability for all users/uses continues to deteriorate.  

    

 

 

Up
7

Maintenance and improvement of utilities is usually a vote loser, because the average layperson can't see it (as opposed to new playgrounds or the like), and doesn't really care about it until there's a real problem.

But yes general consensus seems to be everywhere but the issue. It's now about cultural divide and state imposition.

Up
4

Agree Kate  "... the real problem is more stuff individual communities can't afford to pay...."

I get concerned we don't actually face that, and instead try for marginal benefit from reorganising and laughably - better borrowing schemes.

Maybe the water we want is going to cost $10K per house per year.  No magic illusion can make that different. 

Up
4

Very much aligned with pdks energy thinking, all the cheap options are done, from 20 or more years ago it gets exponentially more expensive. And ratepayers don't understand just how expensive and those in charge, elected and not, don't want to tell them.

Mania Mahuta has come up with a figure, right or wrong, and all those who wish to be deaf to it and/or have have empires to protect have pulled out the bats and taken to her.

Up
2

Yes, I think we need as a country to talk about how to change our mindset from NZ being a land of plenty/abundance, to measures we might take to adapt to water scarcity and dwindling processing capacity.  People who have lived on tank water during a dry summer fundamentally understand this, for example;

If it's yellow, let it mellow - if it's brown flush it down.  

And showering in a large bucket-like container with the water collected being used on the veggie patch.

Sounds silly, but we're heading back to the future.

Up
0

Reduce population Kate.  Better than s**t up around our ankles. 

Up
3

Are you volunteering your friends and family for the gas chamber, or just other peoples families? 

Because the only other options are no immigration (except we want/need many skilled workers in various fields like healthcare/aged care in the immediate future) and somehow lowering the birthrate, which is already pretty low, particularly amongst the better off parts of the community, and is going to take 20+ years to have much impact anyway.

Up
1

I have 3 x 25k L tanks and a dripper watse system .... at my scale water does not cost 10k a year, thats a ridiculous figure if you scale it up to town/city scales......

Up
1

Exactly, a vehicle for co-governance.

Up
13

When have half the prison population is Maori maybe we need it.

New episode of scfi TV series Andor last night. They had him locked up in a floating prison factory. Nation should take note. They could lock up the rest of the Maori population in one of those. Maybe that's why they were so keen on building dedicated  quarantine facilities. They could have been turned into prisons.

Up
0

... one has to choose between being outraged by your paranoid deluded posts ... or , to larf at you for being the biggest prankster going around interest.co.nz ... nice trolling !

Up
9

Maybe smaller bowls, think you are doing too much.....

Up
0

Maybe they belong in there for their criminal behaviour? Maori have historically committed statistically disproportionate amounts of crime in New Zealand and by not appropriately managing it, everyone else suffers and develops a grievance against Maori for it. Strongly enforcing the law and controlling crime does far more for the public good and race relations than the emerging regime of not controlling crime for fear of racism. The growing backlash against maori is fueled by a sense of injustice in the non-maori population with the crimewave and Ram Raids etc.

Up
7

And yet...

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/crime-need-vs-greed

White collar crime costs New Zealand billions of dollars a year, yet offenders are rarely prosecuted. Instead, our system is focused on crimes of poverty and need. Former police detective Tim McKinnel investigates our justice system, asking if we have the balance right.

Up
2

When you visit the Cooks ask to go to the beach where they sent out the warriors from. Why was it that the warriors were sent? Because they were the ones causing all the trouble in the Cook Islands in the first place. That's part of the reason why we have so many warriors here. Still.

Up
1

Maybe posters should find out how many management and consultant positions there are in the water divisons of their local council / regional council, before commenting . Here's a hint , if it is not at least double what you thought it would be,I would be surprised. 

Then maybe try making a complaint or comment about the quality or cost  of your supplied water, and then comment on the local democracy. 

Up
4

"let’s not forget that safe and affordable water is a human right"

Love hearing xxxxxx is a human right whether it be the pension, benefits or fresh water .  We may have signed up to international conventions, but ultimately parliament has supreme unbridled power. 

Our rights only exist because of an acts of parliament.  Even our human rights and Constitution "acts" are only acts of parliament.   Until we have a consistution written by the people for the people where it states the government and the crown work for the people, limiting their powers, we will never really be free, or have real human rights

Up
5

Convert three waters into two waters. Combine sewage and stormwater.

Then start building it and dont stop. It is a forever project.

 

Up
1

... shit happens ... 

Up
2

Auckland is already doing that - and closing all the best beaches because of E.coli levels.

Up
1

Jeremyr hit the nail on the head with the 1st post. Our current pinhead PM's communist patron (Clark) changed the law to force councils to look after peoples well being!!! For sure a core council responsibility!! Imagine how much better our water supplies (and all sorts of other core council stuff) would be if the billions wasted on council vanity projects and paper shufflers had been spent where it should have been. A perfect example is my local council which is currently building a new council HQ. Budgeted cost around 55.million. Will without doubt go over budget, this is a massive amount of money for a county of around 30000 people. I'm not against a new council building but It doesn't need a climbing wall, video room and water feature! Clarke's legislation should have been dumped by Key immediately.

Up
11

Similar thing happened when the power boards were demutualised. They suddenly all had flash new buildings.

 

Up
3

You mean that Key who killed Ecan democracy and put his communist style  commissioners in Ecan to make sure that even farmers can't drink the water from their own wells anymore?

Up
2

Yes DD62 the Local Government Act was typical socialist "inspirational" stuff which just blurred the focus of local government on their main local task of maintaining the "commons". But the previous legislative disaster, introduced by Geoffrey Palmer before Labour left office and to their eternal discredit,  which the National government enacted in 1991, the Resource Management Act, was perhaps the most expensive blunder of all time.

The RMA was introduced, it was said, to make land management, "permissive, rather than prescriptive; simpler, cheaper, & faster". Again, high sounding legislation which in reality caused an avalanche of planning, complex local regulation, court cases to find out just what the fine phrases actually meant, and of course bringing a trainload of extra costs....billions of dollars....loaded onto both land purchasers and ratepayers. One wit noted that they had consumed several forests to make the ensuing paperwork which supposedly was going to save the environment.

And now, I believe, we are recruiting another generation of planners and analysts to produce a new RMA to correct the problems of the original mess.

NZ is remarkably poorly served by our Legislature. Let's see what a mess they can make out of their proposed Hate Speech lawmaking....a new Ministry of Truth in the making?  Roll on "1984"!

Up
1

Last time I looked all races had to drink water and shit.

I do not see the need for C0-Governance, I see a need for Qualified Engineers to lead this space, backed up by Qualified Financial leaders to maintain rigorous cost and accounting controls....

I actually agree it should be taken away from the current  council elected clown show !

 

But this co governance BS no way. IWI will struggle to stand representation that is qualified in 3W across 4 boards.

We do not need token governance we need professionals

Up
5

What makes you think there won't be professionals running it ? Presuming Iwi have a say in who gets employed , they have no qualms about employing Pakeha if that iis what is required. 

From what i have read there will be no shortage of engineers avaliable ex councils. 

Up
1

Mahuta's whanau, hapu and iwi. In that order.

Up
7

You would think so, wouldn't you.

But the only prerequisite in the job descriptions is the ability to speak Te Reo Maori. Seriously!

Up
1

What job description???? . they havent even set the authorities up yet .

Up
0

Ruakaka had unpalatable if not undrinkable water in the 70's and 80's, when I was young. The Whangarei District Council invested $millions of ratepayer money through the decades to improve water quality to the point where it is high quality drinking water. Why should these ratepayers subsidized the others that have squandered money on non-core functions over the years? Socialism at its ugly worst.

The cliched use of "benefit from greater scale, expertise, operational efficiencies and financial flexibility" as an excuse for creating a giant lumbering bureaucracy is the catch cry of the Wellington public servant. This argument was used by the Auckland Super City proponents to argue the consolidation of the city councils.  We were promised lower rates and more efficiency. What we have gained is a large, inefficient and unaccountable bureaucracy that demands more and more annually to sustain it.

Just how will "operational efficiencies" be gained from centralization? If I was to request work on the water system and require a hole dug, then how will the central Water department know where the other utilities, road and other infrastructure reside and the local consenting process to perform the works??

The cost of merging IT systems and training people on a new system will be in the region of $1 billion. These sorts of mergers never go well and will take many years to complete. The return on this investment will take decades to realize, if at all. How's that for "financial flexibility"?

The insertion of the iwi co-governance is a naked power grab by Mahuta and her cronies. These "appointments" will be based on your race and your whakapapa rather than your abilities as an administrator or manager, if Mahuta's track record is anything to go by. This has all the hallmarks of a 3rd world govt bureaucracy. 

Three Waters legislation is ill considered and amounts to the blatant theft of property. Co-governance is racist, divisive and must be stopped or this country will be torn apart.

Up
8

A couple of comments - you say;

The Whangarei District Council invested $millions of ratepayer money through the decades to improve water quality to the point where it is high quality drinking water. Why should these ratepayers subsidized the others that have squandered money on non-core functions over the years? 

It's highly likely that Ruakaka's water reticulation upgrades were subsidized via general rates collected over the whole of the Whangarei District.  The thing about NZ is that we build roads and pipes to far too many remote locations for it to be economical for each of those individual small settlements/communities to pay their own way. 'Socialism' as you refer to it, has always operated in terms of our widely dispersed population.  

If I was to request work on the water system and require a hole dug, then how will the central Water department know where the other utilities, road and other infrastructure reside and the local consenting process to perform the works??

I currently access this type of data via geographic information systems (GIS) online for local authorities all over NZ.  It is publicly available information for all but the poorest/smallest of LAs.  

blatant theft of property

3W infrastructure is public property - I can't quite understand what the fuss is about which public entity owns it.  I suspect most LAs that object on that issue do so due to accounting matters (i.e., asset re-valuation and depreciation benefits).  

Up
0

Wow! I am deeply disturbed (but unfortunately not too surprised) that a senior academic should be spouting nonsense about UN endorsed "human rights".

I can agree with his statement that, "clean water is a necessity of life." The rest of his essay  about water (in detail) being a "human right" is, without some considerable consideration of the obligation of who(?) is to provide and achieve that "right", is just more of the quasi- socialist nonsense that seems to be such a feature of academic output these days.

I mean, silly me, I live in the country beyond local reticulation. I doubt there would be any change out of $50k to provide me with tanks, pumps, filters, septic tanks, not to mention the high recurring costs of maintaining same. As all this is, apparently one of my basic rights to be guaranteed by nanny state (the socialists claim), should I not have just rung our kind PM to ask when all the above kit would be delivered...along with all the other stuff to assure my "right" to a warm dry, as well as, watered, home?

Dear Associate Professor, please stop worrying about the problem of the State to deliver my water. It has already been sorted! Yes, we have to drag the odd dead possum out of our tank, and yes, we have to install filters and on occasion even boil our drinking water. But please tell the water police to kindly butt out.

Up
7

Unless you are supplying water to other people, nothing will change for you. If 3 waters doesn't go ahead , you will be paying more towards water infrastructure through your rates than you are now. you could say you will be paying more through central government tax, more taxpayer money will go into water infrastructure. 

Up
0

100%, this is an absurd twisting of the concept of rights. Something cannot be a right if it imposes an obligation on someone else to do something for you. You can't have a right to water because that would imply someone is obliged to supply you with it. You do have a right to freedom of speech, and that's because it imposes no obligation on anyone else to do anything for you. Just because the UN declared water a human right does not make it a coherent claim; the UN is not God.

Up
7

It's such a pity "opinion" pieces regularly look like they originate from the government when university professors are involved.

But as you see from the comments, these politically motivated so-called "opinions" actually back-fire in their attempts to gaslight.

Up
2