or – Water Governance: Who Is Accountable?
Guest Post by Dave Rhodes
Water reform has not disappeared. It has changed form. Recent developments suggest that new water service entities may be governed through layered structures that sit at some distance from directly elected councils, presented as flexibility rather than a fundamental shift. The surface narrative is one of local choice, but the underlying issue is where control now sits.
The key issue is not ownership but control. In several proposed models, boards are appointed through intermediary committees rather than directly by elected representatives, and those committees may include unelected members. In practice, this allows governance arrangements that can accommodate co-governance, even where the term itself is no longer embedded as a legislative requirement. Taken together, these structures shift decision-making away from direct public mandate, even if councils retain formal ownership.
When control becomes indirect, accountability becomes harder to exercise. Communities may still be told who is responsible, but the ability to influence decisions weakens as governance layers increase. The ongoing failures at Moa Point Wastewater Treatment Plant illustrate the point: when outcomes fall short, the immediate question is not process but control - who was in charge, and why did it fail. If that answer is unclear, accountability becomes reactive rather than effective.
This reflects a broader pattern. More complex governance arrangements are increasingly justified on the basis of partnership, efficiency, or expertise, but they also tend to move control further from those who fund and rely on the services. Each step may appear modest, yet collectively they alter how decisions are made and who ultimately holds authority.
Water infrastructure is a public asset, built and maintained over generations by ratepayers. Control of those assets should remain clear, transparent, and anchored in structures that are directly accountable to the communities they serve. Technical input and partnership can sit alongside that, but they should not obscure where final decisions are made.
This is not about terminology. It is about control. The Government was elected on a clear commitment to replace Three Waters and remove co-governance from the model. If new structures allow similar arrangements to continue in practice, under different governance layers and naming, then the substance may be little changed. If control is unclear at the outset, accountability will not resolve it later.
Are the Nats looking at a potential coalition with the Maori Party after the November election? This sort of behaviour would suggest they are.
This is blatant hiepocracey from Luxon, the three waters and co governance were what many Kiwis didn’t want, and definitely got Luxon over the line.
When Labour’s traitors tried selling Kiwis out, there were brazenly arrogant about it.
Fresh water is our most important daily commodity, is there any such thing as an honest politician
Seems like Labour/Greens do not even need to campaign this year – the coalition are doing everything possible to lose on 7th September.
Or as Napoleon would counsel – “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake,” and Luxon is making oh so many with only months left to go.
No wonder his popularity is tanking!
When a political party campaigns on a major topic such as three waters, then tries to enact exactly the same legislation but with obfuscated clauses that will lead to exactly the same outcome – it is hard not to conclude them guilty of a terminological inexactitude.
So if National and Luxon are just as bad as Labour and Mahuta. Although Mahuta is gone (lost her seat) her legacy remains on the left benches.
Just who then can we elect to carry out the wishes of the great unwashed majority of Kiwis?
With National rapidly heading towards becoming a minor party, we can only hope others such as ACT and NZFirst ascend to fill the void – or would a party currently outside of parliament be a possible king-maker such as The Outdoors Party?
One can only hope!
I think that we have to realise that the government does have co-governance in mind – not with iwi but with fed farmers. Without much of an industrial base the mega rich who back Nats and ACT are all exploiters of the land and our oceans. These people will dominate the boards.
John Key ass Pm fatuously said water belongs to nobody. What a stupid thing to say. Water is gold and will always be under threat from greed. Tim Neville’s comment warns of one real closed doors alliance and threat.