A current fairy story being told by the Government goes something like this:
Once upon a time there was a government toad who was becoming increasingly agitated in its search for fresh and clean water to live in.
The people had chosen some minor frogs to bring water to the toad.
Since this process wasn’t working, the toad with the toad advisers devised a plan.
They would take the pipes the frogs had been using to bring the water and deliver the water themselves. They would tell the minor frogs that this would be much cheaper, mostly because the toad had rich friends who would lend it money more cheaply.
Since the Toad had promised to marry a nominated representative of tangata whenua some years ago, it would take over the pipes in partnership with the Nominated Representative.
The Toad would then be relabelled Princess and everyone would have sparkly water and live happily ever after. The End.
For a fairy story this may have a weak plot but is otherwise unexceptional.
But as an explanation of what the Government is doing with our resources it is woefully inaccurate and misleading.
The advisers should be telling the Toad that the people could use money borrowed at cheaper rates from the rich friends.
The Toad can on-lend the money. There is no excuse for stealing the pipes based on cheaper money.
The advisers should be telling the Toad that the promise of partnership may have involved the water but it never involved stolen pipes.
And that ownership is about control.
When shareholders appoint directors it is the owners of the assets in a company appointing their agents to look after the company assets. For example, the shareholders of Port Otago, represented by the councillors of the Otago Regional Council, choose the directors of Port Otago.
If the Government took over the choosing of the directors, either themselves or by accepting nominations from tangata whenua, it would be taking over the role which the owners have. It is in fact almost all the control that the shareholders and owners of Port Otago have.
Pretending that the proposal in Three Waters is not taking the water infrastructure belonging to ratepayers is on a good day naive and on a bad day intending to mislead.
The advisers should be suggesting the Toad tells us how apart from the borrowing that could be done using the Toad’s rich friends the proposal would save money, and what is proposed to be done to make the water better. They may also like to tell the Toad whether the Government remains in charge of the stolen pipes at a fundamental level. And also how anything done by larger quasi-government organisations would be cheaper than those which are answerable directly to those who will be paying.
There is also the vexed question about who gets their pipes looked after in priority to others. And who pays. In Dunedin for example, you could bring Karitane and Brighton into the fold by charging each household a payment to join the piped water, to be paid off over some years. Then the rates become the same as everyone else in Dunedin.
Under the Toad’s proposal those without pipes may need to compete with others without pipes, and the costs are much more difficult to allocate to those who receive the advantages. Fairness between those who have for many years paid rates to keep their pipes in good order and their water sparkly clean may find themselves paying for those who haven’t.
In a good fairy story magic is acknowledged. The frog turns into a princess by magic. We all know that this is a willing suspension of disbelief.
In the fairy story the Government is telling us somehow the Toad turns into a princess merely by giving it a new name. Calling something affordable and trying to have us believe that we now have a princess is like crossing off "Toad" and signing off as "Affordable" instead. There is no magic: The Toad is still a toad.
It seems unlikely that the Government will live happily ever after on the basis of this fairy story. Or that this is the end.
- Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and DCC councillor.
