John MacDonald: User pays for water doesn't sit well with me

If you thought Three Waters was a dog, how are you feeling now, with the news out today that the Christchurch City Council is looking at going all user pays on it when it comes to water?  

And this isn’t strictly a conversation about Christchurch. It’s a conversation about your philosophical position when it comes to water – something essential to all of us. And I’d be dead against charging people on the basis of how many litres of water they use.  

So the council is considering changing the way it charges those of us who live in Christchurch for water from being part of our rates bill to it being completely user pays. The more water you use, the more you pay.  

And I’m not a fan because, when it comes to something as basic as water, I think it’s unfair to go completely user pays.  

Just because you might use a lot of water, it doesn’t mean you can afford to pay more for it.  

And you might be thinking ‘well, what about electricity? What you pay for power is based on how much you use?’ And I’d say fair point, but the horse has already bolted when it comes to electricity. It doesn't mean we should do the same with water. 

So the council's thinking about making this change as a result of the Government’s water reforms – which it calls “Local Water Done Well”. And is its alternative to Labour’s ill-fated three waters reforms, which were all about taking responsibility for water off the councils. It wanted to take the water assets off council hands too.  

So the Government’s told councils that it’s not taking over but it’s still going to tell them what to do. Which means Christchurch is grappling with how it’s going to deliver what the government wants. Which is essentially deciding whether it’s going to keep running water services in-house, or whether it's going to set up a whole new entity to run water.  

The other question facing the council is how it charges for water. 

And it’s a simple decision the council has to make. Does it keep doing it the way its always done it? Where water is part of your rates bill. Or does it go all user-pays on it and charge people for water depending on how much they use.  

Now before we go any further, let’s forget about the fact that not every property in Christchurch has its own water meter. Because what we’re talking about here is the philosophical debate as to whether water should be an outright transaction, where we pay for what we use, or whether we should all be sharing the load a bit more.   

Sure, if you live on your own in an expensive part of town, then you’re going to effectively pay more for your water than someone in another part of town who’s property might not be worth as much as yours.  

But that seems fair to me.   

Because why should someone who doesn’t live in an expensive part of town but has, say, three or four kids and, because of that, uses a truckload more water than the person living on their own in Fendalton, be forced to pay more?  

The answer is, they shouldn’t.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from newstalk z'b.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
If you thought three Waters was a dog, chances are
you dead. If you thought three Waters was a dog? Well,
how are you feeling now with the news out today
that the christ Church City Council is looking at going
oh user pays on it when it comes to water
charging by the leader. And if you're in Selwyn or

(00:34):
Way Macarera or hood Anuwa, or if you if you
are anywhere other than Christchurch City, don't think this doesn't
affect you because your counselor might end up doing the same.
And I'm not liking it. Just so you know. By
the way, Selwyn is consulting Rate Powers on what it
should do, and Kaikoda heard Anewi and Way Macareri they're
working together on a plan. So this isn't strictly a

(00:57):
conversation this morning about christ Church. It's a conversation about
your philosophical position when it comes to water, something which
is a scene to all of us, and whether we
should be paying specifically or exactly for the amount that
we use. And I'm dead against it. I'm dead against

(01:19):
charging people on spaces. So the christ Church Council, here's
what's happening. It's considering changing the way it charges people
who live in christ Church from water being part of
the rate spill. So I just you know it's itemized
on the rates bill. Oh water, Okay, there it goes
to it being completely user pace. So the more water

(01:40):
you use, the more you pay. And I'm not a
fan because and that's pointing it lightly, because when it
comes to something as basic as water, when it comes
to something as essential as water, I reckon it's unfair
to go completely use the pace because just because you
might use a lot of water, it doesn't mean that

(02:03):
you can afford to pay more for it doesn't. And
you might be listening to me and thinking, well, hold on,
don't worried about electricity. What you pay for power is
based on how much you use. And I'll tell you
what I'll say to that fair point. But the horse
has already bolted when it comes to electricity, and it

(02:23):
doesn't mean we should do the same with water. And
I know it's done in some parts, but I'm just saying,
why would you. So the council's thinking about making this
change as a result of the government's water reforms, which
the government calls Local Water done Well, and it's the
alternative or the replacement to Labour's ill fated Three Waters reforms,

(02:46):
which is why I said at the start, if you
thought it was a dog, maybe you don't think it
was so bad. After all, Labor of course wanted to
take responsibility for water off the councils. It also wanted
to take the water assets off the council council's hands
as well, and people they went ape about that. And
because people went ape about it, now promise to get

(03:07):
rid of three Waters and come up with something better. Well,
really is this something better? And the government's told councils
but it's not going to be taking over, but it's
still going to be telling them what to do. And
this is what christ Church is grappling with now, how
it's going to deliver what the government wants. And this

(03:29):
is where it's got to the point now where it's
deciding whether it's going to keep running water services in
house or whether it's going to set up a whole
new entity to run water. And it's being reported this
morning that could cost about fifteen million dollars. It's just
to set it up, and that's just for christ Church.
The other big question facing the Council, and this is

(03:51):
what I want to talk to you about this morning.
The other big question facing the council is how it
charges people for water. And it's a very simple decision
the Council has to make. Does it keep doing it
the way it's always done it, where water is part
of the rates bill, everyone pays well, not the same
that everybody pays on the basis of the value of

(04:13):
their property, or does it go completely user pays and
charge people for water depending on how much they use.
Before we go any further for the purposes of today's discussion,
let's forget about the fact that not every property in
christ Church has its own water meter. You remember that
became apparent when the Council first introduced its excess water charges,

(04:37):
and we talked a lot about that. So let's not
get bogged down in that, because what we're talking about
today is the philosophical debate as to where the water
which we all need, whether that should be an outright
transaction where we pay for what we use, or whether
we should be sharing the load a bit more as

(04:57):
we do. Now you know, I'm sure, if you live
on your own in an expensive part of town, then
under the carry system, you're effectively going to pay more
for your water than someone in another part of town
whose property might not be worth as much. But that
seems fair to me, always has because why should someone

(05:19):
who Why should someone who doesn't live in an expensive
part of town that has say three or four kids,
which of course means they use a truckload more water
than the person living on their own in Fendleton. Why
should they be forced to pay more? And the answer
to that is they shouldn't, which is why I think
the Council should stick to what it does now and

(05:40):
include a water charge in the Rights bill instead of
charging us for every liter of water we use.

Speaker 1 (05:46):
For more from Catergory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio