In November last year, I was invited to be part of the working group on representation, governance and accountability of new water services entities. 

I accepted the position, knowing the decision would be unpopular with some in the community, who saw my being on a government working group as giving in to the reforms.

I saw it quite differently. 

I recognised that the reforms were unpopular for a number of reasons (that I will come to), but that they would go ahead regardless, barring a change of government. 

My view was that there was greater benefit found in trying to better the reform proposal from within the tent than jumping up and down about it from outside.

In sitting in the room and then the zoom with the other working group members (eight other mayors and eight iwi leaders with an independent chair), I have had priorities in my mind that I wanted to push through to recommendations to the Government.

The first of these, for me, was maintaining competency based boards to run the entities. 

No matter what anyone thinks of the reforms, my view is that if they go ahead, they have to go ahead well. 

Inefficiency or incompetence at the board level will only cause increased costs in the future for consumers. 

The cost to us now of fixing the Aurora mismanagement of the past is living proof of that so I was adamantly opposed to any talk of direct appointments from either iwi or councils.

Secondly, we needed to address the very real sense in the community that assets were being stolen from us by these reforms.

I believe we have found a way around that issue that will give the public a greater sense of ownership than the present government proposal. 

The final report from the working group goes to the minister on Monday, so I am not able to fully explain here the exact details of the improvements the working group has made, but they should be public next week.

Thirdly, there is a real and reasonable concern that local control over what water services would be provided where and at what cost would be lost. 

There is a recommendation that addresses that, allowing small councils like ours to have a seat if not at the top regional representative table (although that won’t be impossible), then at least at the table next to it, and close enough to make sure our voice gets heard.

Fourthly, there have been very heated views expressed about the idea that iwi would have ownership of half the infrastructure under the Government proposal. 

Let me be clear on a couple of things. 

Firstly, there never has been any suggestion of this from government, but in the age of misinformation, this falsehood has become a gospel to some. 

Secondly, between this working group and meetings I have attended with Ngai Tahu on the reforms that would total over 100 hours, the only time iwi have mentioned ownership is to say they don’t want anything to do with it. 

Iwi will undoubtably have a louder voice in the three waters space if/when these proposals go through, but there is no suggestion at all of ownership.

Fifth is the very real and genuine fear that these reforms open the door some time further down the track to privatisation, as happened with our power industry. 

In my role as Mayor, I always have Mrs Smith of Shannon Street in my mind. 

Mrs Smith doesn’t actually exist, but in my head she is a pensioner working out how to pay her bills on a fixed income. 

She represents not just pensioners, but anyone in our community who finds it hard to make ends meet. 

Having come to Central on the DPB a quarter century ago, I can genuinely empathise with the fictional Mrs Smith. 

If privatisation occurs, there would be a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich every time Mrs Smith fills her kettle. 

This cannot be allowed to happen and there are a couple of strong recommendations from the working group, including the shareholding one, that will provide a strong barrier to this. 

On the subject of privatisation though, having iwi in the room is probably the strongest protection we have against this happening, as iwi don’t think about tomorrow’s profits, but consider things on an inter-generational basis.

And finally, I have been worried about what happens when someone has a problem with the water entity in years to come. 

Right now, if you’ve got a water bill you don’t think is right, you can ask an elected member to help you out in working out a solution. 

That won’t do you much good, unfortunately, once the reforms happen, in much the same way that ringing your councillor about a power bill now isn’t a lot of use. 

Even though the councils will still have influence through the regional representative group, I can’t see that extending to sorting out individual customer complaints. 

There will be a recommendation from the working group on how to address that gap.

It's frustrating not being able to give the full details of what is being proposed, but that is how the system works I’m afraid. 

There will be lots of chances over the next few weeks to have deeper conversations and I’m always happy to chat one-on-one if you wish to.