Commentary by Chief Executive Murray Gibb - July 2010
Water New Zealand Policies
Readers will have noted a number of letters to the editor in recent issues of the Journal debating Water New Zealand policies. That is good. Debate is healthy. What isn’t good is poor communications. Much conflict in the world simply rises from poor communications. Clearing blockages to poor communications, like blocked drains, can resolve cesspits of conflict.
What has become clear out of this is that the way Water New Zealand develops positions on relevant public policy is not as well understood as it might be. In this column I want to go through the strategic thinking behind the Board’s decision to promulgate policy, as well as the methodology for doing so.
Why do it in the first instance? What was the strategic thinking behind the Board’s decision to take public positions on sometimes controversial matters?
There were three good reasons for doing so.
In the first instance the constitutional mandate requires the Association to take positions. Rule 2 of our constitution states our organisational purpose. It is “to be the pre-eminent organisation in New Zealand for promoting and enabling the sustainable management and development of the water environment.”
In the second instance members had given a clear signal in a survey in late 2006 that they wanted to see more leadership from the organization. This was reinforced by a communications audit in late 2008 which showed that Water New Zealand had some way to go to achieve leadership space on water.
It was pretty clear that Water New Zealand had to step up to the plate more visibly in providing direction in the debate on the future of water governance and management in New Zealand.
Other organisations were developing public policy on water by this time.
The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development had put out its document ‘A best use solution for New Zealand’s water problems.’ Aimed at providing solutions to challenges round the first in first served method of allocating water, along with declining water quality, it suggested a range of solutions.
Prior to the last general election the then Opposition had released its Bluegreen vision for New Zealand. It too focused on water allocation and quality.
IPENZ also released its policy document Water New Zealand’s valuable natural resource.
The New Zealand Business Council for Infrastructure Development had also pitched in with its National Water Industry 2008 Report Card and Roadmap to 2020.
Thirdly, it is good corporate citizenship to do so. Professional associations, such as Water New Zealand have a public duty to develop policies on subjects within their area of expertise/interest. Water is our area of expertise.
Our membership covers the length and breadth of the water industry. We attract decision makers and technologists from central and local government, industry, the academic and research communities, consultants and service/equipment supply organisations. The Associations’ members represent all disciplines covering the water space including physical and social sciences, public health, engineering, law and management.
In harvesting the collective knowledge of its members and developing policies, the Association is simply practicing good corporate citizenship.
The Board has since undertaken two specific initiatives to influence public policy on water.
In 2008 it facilitated the Turnbull Group to develop new proposals on governance of water. A group of individuals, not representing any sector, committed themselves to a solutions based approach to improved water management. The Turnbull Group’s report was released in July last year.
It has also adopted a structured process for development and formal adoption of policies. Given effect through a standard operating procedure the consultation process involves four steps.
Firstly policy is proposed. The Board and executive office do not have sufficient expertise or resource to be able to write policy on every area of industry activity. Therefore, reliance is placed on members or SIGs with specific expertise/interest to assist in the development of policy within their area of competence. The process of initiating policy development may come from members, SIGs, the executive office or the Board.
Secondly, Board approval must be sought prior to development of a draft policy.
Thirdly, depending upon the degree of generic interest and sensitivity, a draft policy statement may go through a greater or lesser degree of consultation. At the minimum members are notified in Pipeline and draft policies are posted on the website for six weeks.
We make no apologies for consulting with members in this way. The internet provides a cost effective and efficient way for communication with all members. If members don’t agree with draft policy, but don’t respond, we are in no position to take their views into account.
If it takes longer to get to an agreed position then we use that time to debate matters further. For example our policy on water metering and volumetric charging on domestic dwellings was debated for several months before being ratified.
Lastly, draft policies are ratified by the Board. They are living documents and as such subject to five yearly reviews.
A list of ratified policies is available on the Association’s website. More draft policies are in the pipeline. At the time of writing these include ownership of urban water infrastructure, regulation of the urban water industry and training and standards in the water industry. We welcome member input in the development of Water New Zealand policies. The more input we receive from members the better.
Readers will have noted a number of letters to the editor in recent issues of the Journal debating Water New Zealand policies. That is good. Debate is healthy. What isn’t good is poor communications. Much conflict in the world simply rises from poor communications. Clearing blockages to poor communications, like blocked drains, can resolve cesspits of conflict.
What has become clear out of this is that the way Water New Zealand develops positions on relevant public policy is not as well understood as it might be. In this column I want to go through the strategic thinking behind the Board’s decision to promulgate policy, as well as the methodology for doing so.
Why do it in the first instance? What was the strategic thinking behind the Board’s decision to take public positions on sometimes controversial matters?
There were three good reasons for doing so.
In the first instance the constitutional mandate requires the Association to take positions. Rule 2 of our constitution states our organisational purpose. It is “to be the pre-eminent organisation in New Zealand for promoting and enabling the sustainable management and development of the water environment.”
In the second instance members had given a clear signal in a survey in late 2006 that they wanted to see more leadership from the organization. This was reinforced by a communications audit in late 2008 which showed that Water New Zealand had some way to go to achieve leadership space on water.
It was pretty clear that Water New Zealand had to step up to the plate more visibly in providing direction in the debate on the future of water governance and management in New Zealand.
Other organisations were developing public policy on water by this time.
The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development had put out its document ‘A best use solution for New Zealand’s water problems.’ Aimed at providing solutions to challenges round the first in first served method of allocating water, along with declining water quality, it suggested a range of solutions.
Prior to the last general election the then Opposition had released its Bluegreen vision for New Zealand. It too focused on water allocation and quality.
IPENZ also released its policy document Water New Zealand’s valuable natural resource.
The New Zealand Business Council for Infrastructure Development had also pitched in with its National Water Industry 2008 Report Card and Roadmap to 2020.
Thirdly, it is good corporate citizenship to do so. Professional associations, such as Water New Zealand have a public duty to develop policies on subjects within their area of expertise/interest. Water is our area of expertise.
Our membership covers the length and breadth of the water industry. We attract decision makers and technologists from central and local government, industry, the academic and research communities, consultants and service/equipment supply organisations. The Associations’ members represent all disciplines covering the water space including physical and social sciences, public health, engineering, law and management.
In harvesting the collective knowledge of its members and developing policies, the Association is simply practicing good corporate citizenship.
The Board has since undertaken two specific initiatives to influence public policy on water.
In 2008 it facilitated the Turnbull Group to develop new proposals on governance of water. A group of individuals, not representing any sector, committed themselves to a solutions based approach to improved water management. The Turnbull Group’s report was released in July last year.
It has also adopted a structured process for development and formal adoption of policies. Given effect through a standard operating procedure the consultation process involves four steps.
Firstly policy is proposed. The Board and executive office do not have sufficient expertise or resource to be able to write policy on every area of industry activity. Therefore, reliance is placed on members or SIGs with specific expertise/interest to assist in the development of policy within their area of competence. The process of initiating policy development may come from members, SIGs, the executive office or the Board.
Secondly, Board approval must be sought prior to development of a draft policy.
Thirdly, depending upon the degree of generic interest and sensitivity, a draft policy statement may go through a greater or lesser degree of consultation. At the minimum members are notified in Pipeline and draft policies are posted on the website for six weeks.
We make no apologies for consulting with members in this way. The internet provides a cost effective and efficient way for communication with all members. If members don’t agree with draft policy, but don’t respond, we are in no position to take their views into account.
If it takes longer to get to an agreed position then we use that time to debate matters further. For example our policy on water metering and volumetric charging on domestic dwellings was debated for several months before being ratified.
Lastly, draft policies are ratified by the Board. They are living documents and as such subject to five yearly reviews.
A list of ratified policies is available on the Association’s website. More draft policies are in the pipeline. At the time of writing these include ownership of urban water infrastructure, regulation of the urban water industry and training and standards in the water industry. We welcome member input in the development of Water New Zealand policies. The more input we receive from members the better.