[ad_1]
Invercargill city councillors have baulked at endorsing a technical report on three waters reform being prepared by local government staff across Otago and Southland.
They have approved the council’s own but were “blindsided’’ – in the words of infrastructure committee chairman Ian Pottinger – by the realisation a detailed, technical report from local government staff would be separately submitted under the names of the chief executives of the Invercargill, Dunedin, Clutha, Central Otago, Waitaki and Queenstown councils.
Though this had been referred to at an ICC workshop level beforehand, councillors had not understood that report would be entirely independent of their council’s own submission.
Councils nationwide have been on a tight deadline to make submissions to the second and third stage three waters legislation – the Water Services Legislation Bill and Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill – which close nationwide on Friday.
READ MORE:
* A shortened year at Parliament starts without a prime minister
* Council could defy Government legislation to safeguard New Plymouth ratepayers
* The need to cut through the confusion over co-governance
ICC infrastructure group manager Erin Moogan and chief executive Clare Hadley stressed at a special meeting of the council’s infrastructure committee on Tuesday that the combined Otago Southland staff submission would contain nothing that was in conflict with the council’s own submission.
It would address technical issues on many points, particularly envisaged problems of staff retention.
But Mayor Nobby Clark and six councillors voted it down on the basis they wouldn’t get to see the staff submission before it was completed.
Clark, Pottinger, and councillors Nigel Skelt, Ria Bond, Trish Boyle, Grant Dermody and Allan Arnold voted not to endorse the combined staffs report.
“This is a governance issue,’’ Clark said.
The Central Otago District Council, for instance, had views markedly different from those of the ICC and the council would not be in a position to consider the combined staff report before the deadline.
Cr Lesley Soper disagreed. Not to have Invercargill staff involved in a technical submission, when they had an assurance it would be in no way at variance with the council’s own more general submission, would be a disservice, she said.
[ad_2]