The Alliance has had a win with the Water Company Statement of Expectations, but it didn't really feel like a win on the day.

It has not been common in recent years for Ratepayers to be listened to – but the Alliance has had a win with the Water Company Statement of Expectations (SOE). A version of what we requested, to represent the overall community, has been added to the SOE.

The reason this is important is because the clauses in the SOE must legally be adhered to by the Water company, so they must deliver on behalf of the community with what is worded in the SOE.

Some of our team had a very long day – around 4 hours – listening to general agenda discussions before getting to the Water Company SOE debate. This took around an hour with a lunch break inbetween. It was a win for the Alliance, which actually is a big deal in a good way for the community, but it didn’t really feel like it by the time this agenda item was completed.

We’ll explain why, and tell you how Councillors voted on a co-governance decision, once we tell you what we have managed to achieve for ratepayers, renters and the water company customers.

Just a reminder of what was in the original document to protect the public’s rights:

b. Relationship with New Plymouth District Community:

i. The Council expects the Company to operate in a manner that is socially responsible, by having regard to the interests of the New Plymouth district community and endeavouring to accommodate those interests when it is able to.

ii. As far as possible, the Company is expected to undertake its operations, and make decisions, with the best interests of the New Plymouth district’s current and future communities in mind.

• The Alliance took exception with the words “when it is able to” and “as far as possible”. This was far to vague to represent the rights of the overall community.

These 2 clauses remain in the SOE document - but a third clause has been added.

The Alliance legal opinion presentation has enabled extra protection with the general community’s rights with this third clause added:

iii. The Company is to engage with consumers and the community in line with its Significance and Engagement Policy and in a manner proportionate to the nature and significance of the matter, including by maintaining awareness of relevant stakeholders, providing timely and accessible information appropriate to the audience, seeking input on significant matters where appropriate, and reporting annually, at an appropriate level of detail, on engagement activities and how feedback has informed decision-making

This clause wasn’t our preferred option, but it also wasn’t our worst case option, it was a combination of a number of things we asked for. A compromise for the community to be included.

• But this third clause makes a huge difference to the outcomes the community can expect from the Water Company, because by law, they must now recognise relevant stakeholders, must provide information appropriate to the audience, seek input on significant matters, and, report on how feedback has affected decision making – feedback they have obtained from the community.

In late June three of our team met with the Mayor and the CEO of the NPDC to discuss some issues of concern. One of the discussions that took place was about “relevant stakeholders” and an agreed understanding that Ratepayers are significantly affected by decisions made at the NPDC. The process has now started with the Alliance “relevant stakeholder” status on behalf of Ratepayers.

A very important next step is making sure all “relevant stakeholders” are identified and consulted with in the Significance and Engagement policy which will be created by the Water Company.

We will continue our work to include all of the community with the consultation and feedback with how this new Water Company operates in the future.

• We do want to acknowledge that all of the elected officials accepted the new clause. There were no discussions about changing, or removing, any of the wording of the clause presented with the Final SOE document.

We do appreciate the votes approving this, but what is of a huge concern to us is how hard it seems to be to get the needs of the overall community top of mind with our Council system.

So why DIDN’T this change to the SOE feel like a win for the overall New Plymouth Community ?

There was no discussion about adding the clause for the Community, but there was around an hour’s discussion about changes to one of the Iwi and Hapu relationship clauses.

To put this in to perspective – the preferred option we presented to the NPDC – which was legally possible to do – was to give the overall community exactly the same rights as the rights in the Iwi and Hapu clauses in the SOE (removing any reference to Treaty Settlements in the wording - as they don’t apply to the rest of the community).

• Our NPDC SOE presentation asked for equal rights for IWI, Hapu and the rest of the community.

We’ve attached notes from the agenda written by NPDC staff explaining why it wasn’t possible to meet the request from the Alliance for equal rights for the community. And, NPDC staff concerns about consultation costs if the overall community had “disproportionate” involvement in decision making.

So after reading what wasn’t possible for the Ratepayers, Renters and Water Company customers – as it was disproportionate – we listened to a debate about one clause in the Relationship section with Iwi and Hapu.

This was the section debated on for over an hour:

c. Supporting mana whenua, hapū and iwi to uphold their tikanga, rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, mana motuhake and mana whakahaere aspirations through collaboration, codesign, resourcing and shared decision-making particularly in matters relating to te taiao,with their kaitiaki responsibilities.

• There are a variety of names for this in 2026 – co-governance, partnership, co-management – this document calls it co-design and resourcing – but whatever officials want to label it – it is co-governance of the Water Company with Iwi and Hapu.

Several of the new Councillors who people voted in last year (as many voters wanted Councillors who would represent everyone in the community) made an attempt to have an amendment made to this clause and remove the reference to Co-Governance.

A replacement clause was suggested – so that the co-governance clause was removed.

Gordon Brown and David Bublitz put forward a motion to have this amendment removed, and for the original co-governance clause to REMAIN in the SOE.

A division was called so a vote took place.

We have attached a copy of the minutes showing the vote, but the whole process was very complicated. Those who voted FOR the motion were voting for the amendment to KEEP the Co-Governance clause.

• Just so it is very clear for the community the following explains how the officials voted

Those who voted to replace the co governance clause (so remove co-governance from the document) were:

Mayor Max Brough, Councillors Graham Chard, Damon Fox, Murray Chong and Kerry Vosseler.

Those who voted to keep the co-governance clause were:

Councillors EJ Barrett, Sam Bennett, Gina Blackburn, Gordon Brown, David Bublitz, Christine Fabish, Moira George, Dinnie Moeahu, and John Woodward.

The meeting has now taken place, and co-governance has been included in the Statement of Expectations for the Water Company.

We did say last year that we were going to hold elected officials accountable with the decisions they vote for - so we are letting the community know who voted how with this Water Company decision.