Audrey Malone writes:

Bill English made it a priority to walk around all of the offices the day after Winston’s announcement to say thank you and sorry for not getting over the line. One staff member burst into tears upon hearing his comments and Bill hugged her.

So Bill went around all 25 offices the next day to talk to, thank and commiserate the staff. He knows that while Ministers get a pay cut, it is the staff who lose their jobs (well most of them).

Others were offering help where they could, ensuring the staffer could get a new job.

Paula Bennett invited staffers to her office for some job-seeking advice.

In her former life she had been a recruiter, and wanted to do her bit to dish out some wisdom to help with gainful employment.  Not for any other reason than she knew there was a group of people who were a bit bereft and suddenly found themselves in the situation of having to get a job.

Bennett and Judith Collins were acutely aware that the change of Government also meant that hundreds of other people through no fault of their own had suddenly lost their jobs.  

Collins wrote a Facebook tribute to staff making note of the change in circumstances for them.

Say what you like about Crusher Collins, but people notice those things, and it goes a long way. 

Good MPs tend to care for their staff.

Last week Parliament paid tribute to Ian Templeton who is retiring after 60 years in the parliamentary press gallery. Ian is one of the nicest people around, and one of the most astute. Not many people are still working at the age of 88!

Some of the tributes:

• Winston Peters: Ian, your service to journalism in Parliament and parliamentary reporting has been pretty remarkable. As a journalist, you were amazingly accurate, interested in the details, a repository of deep knowledge, and, because of that, the stand out character in the press gallery. It’s hard to see how your achievements can ever be replicated.
• Gerry Brownlee: In 60 years of reporting from this place, you’ve carved an enviable reputation for accuracy, for insight, and for fairness. Your discerning but authoritative interview style has always demanded respect. Over the course of your time here, you’ve seen some 608 MPs take their seats, and this is your 21st Parliament. I came to this place when you were well past the midpoint of your career, and the then Prime Minister told all of his new intake that if we wanted to know what was going on around the place, just read Templeton, and that the Trans Tasman was a must-have subscription.
• Clare Curran:  I hear you’ve got an uncanny, longstanding, and well-deserved reputation for getting things right. One of the most important elements of this was his ability to gain trust, and the reason that Ian was able to write so accurately was because of the relationships that he built. He was known to have a weekly meeting with Helen Clark, which I’m sure his fellow gallery journalists were envious of. 

Have a look through this Hansard and you see a parliamentary first. A Government voting against a closure motion on a government bill. You also see lots of fillibustering their own bill also.

The Free Thought Report reviews all the countries as to how do they do with respect to respecting the rights of atheists, or those with no religion.

New Zealand does pretty well, but a few points they note:

• Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961 criminalizes “blasphemous libel” with a maximum sentence of one year.
• A Christian prayer is recited at the opening of every parliamentary session. (no longer Christian)
• There are some 50 Acts on the statute books that favour religion or Ministers of Religion at the expense of the non-religious community.
• Organizations that “advance religion” are given charitable status and tax exemption regardless of any other charitable activity
• A “Statement on Religious Diversity” published and widely promulgated by the Human Rights Commission provides for the “Safety and Protection of Faith Based Communities” but not for non-theistic and other communities.

In late 2015 I did a very large poll on attitudes towards euthanasia. We polled 2,800 adult New Zealanders which has a maximum margin of error of 1.9%. We asked:

Some people believe that the law should be changed to allow doctors to assist in ending the life of a person with an incurable illness, if the patient requests it. What is your view on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legal – strongly oppose, somewhat oppose, somewhat favour, strongly favour?

The overall results were 66% support and just 20% opposed. This is broadly in line with other polls. A more recent Colmar Brunton found 74% in favour and 18% opposed.

In the Curia poll those with strong opinions were also in support. 38% said they strongly support and only 13% strongly oppose. 28% were somewhat support and 7% somewhat oppose.

What I found most interesting is the breakdown by party vote. Here’s how supporters of the four main parties answered:

1. Greens 77% support, 12% oppose = net +65%
2. National 69% support, 18% oppose = net +51%
3. NZ First 69% support, 19% oppose = net +50%
4. Labour 63% support, 19% oppose = net +44%

So supporters of all four parties were very strongly in support. However National Party voters were even more supportive than Labour voters. National voters are overwhelmingly in favour. 39% strongly support and 30% somewhat support against just 12% strongly oppose and 6% somewhat oppose.

When the End of Life Choice Bill comes up for first reading, I hope many National MPs vote for it. Their supporters want New Zealanders to have a choice, and will want to see this specific bill go to select committee so people can submit on it.

There are a small group of New Zealanders who are against euthanasia, no matter what the safeguards are. I respect their convictions but disagree their convictions should determine the law for everyone else.

For most New Zealanders I think it is about making sure there are robust safeguards in place, so that those facing death have a choice about how their life should end. That is why I hope the End of Life Choice Bill gets voted by the House at its first reading to progress to select committee, so New Zealanders can submit on the bill and debate whether the safeguards are adequate and if not how it can be improved. You can read about some of the safeguards in a q+a here.

Radio NZ reports:

A letter from disgruntled Green Party staff to its MPs has revealed complaints of low morale, bad communication and unfair treatment.

Two interesting aspects here. One is that the staff are unhappy enough to write a letter to the caucus. The second is that the letter got leaked. The leaking suggests a deliberate move to undermine the leadership.

The Green Party has always prided itself on its tikanga, campaigning strongly on workers rights, speaking frequently at union events and describing work as “being valued and valuing each other”.

I find those not very good at something are often those who spend the most time talking about it.

RNZ understands there has been a push from senior party staff to hire external people for key advisor roles. There was some pushback, with one minister, Julie Anne Genter, going against the directive and hiring existing staff.

The letter makes it clear that some staff also took exception with the processes and some were left with the “distinct impression they were not valued” or that they had “defects” in their work.

“MPs and senior staff should now be fully aware of the damage to staff morale created by this drift away from Green kaupapa,” the letter said.

All parties face the challenge of deciding if the staff that worked for them in opposition are the right ones for government and vice-versa. Often different skill sets are needed. But most parties manage to do it in a way so that staff feel valued regardless of the decisions.

The letter also states staff were prevented from providing feedback on a proposed staffing structure and “MPs impinged upon important rights to be heard”.

Surely all the staff are PSA members? Have they called on the PSA to intervene?

After the election, the party lost nearly half its number of MPs, forcing it to shed staff and reshuffle office spaces.

The promotion into government not long after added to the chaos.

“Many staff have been in a holding pattern for over a month, which has created uncertainty, paralysis, and low morale,” the letter said.

National had the far harder task of going from 100 or so ministerial staff (excluding secondees) to 20 – 25 in opposition. They managed it pretty quickly and without rancor.

While the Green Party has been celebrating having ministers for the first time, it’s understood this has created some tension within the caucus, with some long-serving MPs, who were overlooked, feeling disgruntled.

Gareth Hughes is probably the one who has the most right to be disgruntled. He’s been in Parliament longer than the three who became Ministers.

This is the Preferred PM rating of the last three PMs in the first ONCB poll after they assumed office:

• Helen Clark 43%
• John Key 51%
• Jacinda Ardern 37%

This is the Preferred PM rating of the last three Opposition Leaders in the first ONCB poll after a change of Government:

• Jenny Shipley 16%
• Phil Goff 6%
• Bill English 28%

So the pundits saying how the ONCB poll was a huge boost for Jacinda Ardern are getting excited about the fact a new PM always is the Preferred PM. But Ardern is starting just 9% ahead of English. Clark started 27% ahead of Shipley and Key 45% ahead of Goff.

Ardern said her Government needs to earn support, not just get it by dint of being in Government. She is correct.

The Herald reports:

Defence minister Ron Mark was specifically told he was breaking all the rules wearing his military medals but went ahead and did so anyway.

Documents show Mark was told on October 27 – just after being sworn in as Minister of Defence – that his rack of medals was a breach of protocol and rules.

The NZ First deputy leader went on wearing his medals until November 15 when the Herald revealed he was in breach of the regulations governing decorations.

This is a significant revelation. It’s one thing for the Minister of Defence to unwittingly break the rules around the wearing of military medals. It is quite another for him to do it deliberately. The former is a mistake. The latter is arrogance.

In the 20 days since Mark learned his medals were a breach of the Crown’s rules on decorations and honours, he wore them while standing in front of veterans, next to the Chief of Defence Force, with foreign leaders and while inspecting troops.

NZ First leader Winston Peters is asking why Mark didn’t simply follow the instructions he was given.

Mark isn’t offering any answers. He did not respond to requests for an interview and did not answer questions. A spokesman said: “This matter has now been dealt with and we consider it closed.”

What on earth was he thinking? If the honours expert at DPMC contacts your office to say your medals are wrongly displayed, why would you just ignore them? They even helpfully told him what he needs to do to conform, but again he just carried on.

The fact Peters is commenting publicly on this is interesting. It is well known Peters wants Shane Jones to succeed him as leader, and the stepping stone for the leadership is Deputy Leader – which Ron Mark is.

If I was Ron Mark I’d be very nervous about Winston’s comments.

The documents show Mark’s office was alerted over the medals’ issue by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet the day after he was sworn in.

It had been the subject of a conversation between a NZ Defence Force lieutenant colonel working in Mark’s office as a private secretary and an expert working in DPMC’s honours secretariat.

Good old DPMC. They are very good at spotting problems early on. But for some reason the Minister just ignored their advice that he was breaching the very rules that he as Minister of Defence is responsible for.

The first post-election One News Colmar Brunton poll is out and despite forming Government, Labour has not received a boost in the polls.

In 1999 the incoming Labour Government got an 11% bump in the polls, as did the incoming National Government in 2008.

The lack of any boost to Labour is probably due to a combination of two factors. The first is that there was no clear vote for change as happened in 1999 and 2008. The second is they have had a pretty shambolic start to Government.

The party vote results are:

1. National 46% (+1.6% from election)
2. Labour 39% (+2.1%)
3. Greens 7% (+0.7%)
4. NZ First 5%  (-2.2%)

Toby Manhire at The Spinoff had written:

The National Party’s polling wizard Farrar and his allies will be hoping that the grudging sentiment that the party won the election yet is locked out of government lingers beyond Nick Smith and co. Just over 44% of voters ticked National. If they can hit 42% or better on Sunday, they’ll be thrilled.

Well at 46% I’d say thrilled is a good description. In 2008 Labour left office on 34% and the next ONCB poll had them down 6% on 28%. To leave office on 44% and be at 46% in the next poll is great.

Labour finished with an official election result just shy of 37%. Certainly they’ll expect to go higher. Anything under 40% will be a disappointment. Anything above National will be a relief. Anything over 45% will warrant champagne.

So a disappointment indeed for Labour. A deserved one I must say.

New Zealand First scored 7.2% in the election. Anything 6% or higher will be a good result on Sunday.

So not a good result for NZ First either. They are on the verge of being wiped out and at a time they should be on a honeymoon of goodwill.

The Greens, who are slightly less constrained in exercising independence by operating outside cabinet, had a white-knuckle campaign, and ended up making it over the threshold without a heap to spare. Their final result was 6.3%. They’ll be desperate to nudge up over 7%, 8% even, to restore a more stable-looking base.

Not a bad result for the Greens compared to the election result but worth recalling they almost always do worse in elections than the polls. Their final ONCB poll before the election was 8% and this poll (which now has 50% mobile phones) has them at 7%.

National of course can’t be complacent. This shows there is considerable goodwill remaining for National and Bill English. The challenge is to both show the failings of the new Government, but also remind people of a positive alternative.

Stats NZ report:

Stats NZ has republished the data to correct an error. The data was first published on 19 October 2017.

The correction means that the average annual household income has risen 50.5 percent since 2007, rather than the 42.0 percent first published in October 2017. The average annual household income reached $104,583 (before tax) in 2017, not $98,621 as originally published.

Worth noting this is before tax income also. If you include the impact of the tax cuts in 2008, 2009 and 2010 then the increase in net incomes is even greater.

Paul Goldsmith writes:

In his scene-setting finance speech, Finance Minister Grant Robertson indicated that money was tight, discipline would be required and the government would prioritise ‘and seek out programmes that are good value for money’.

It’s hard to understand how paying more for people to study golf, homeopathy and skydiving fits into that framework.

Because under the criteria outlined yesterday, fees-free study options include a Diploma in Tournament Golf from IGQ Golf College, a Diploma in Naturopathy and Herbal Medicine from the New Zealand College of Chinese Medicine and a Diploma in Commercial Skydiving.

And a couple of million people will pay $1,000 a year more in tax to make these courses “free”.

Hardworking taxpayers are already subsidising tertiary study by about 80 per cent of the total cost. The average loan is paid off in less than seven years.

An 80% subsidy is very generous when you consider the lifetime value of a degree is $1.5 million in extra income.

Fees, or the thought of getting into debt, may be a barrier for some. But it is a relatively small group.

A policy that is good value for money would target extra assistance directly to this group to genuinely increase the number of Kiwis getting post-school education or training.

The policy is projected to increase tertiary enrolments by around 2%. That’s 2% of 80,000 a year so an extra 1,600 students a year. And the cost will eventually be $1.2 billion a year.

From Hansard:

Mr SPEAKER: I have reviewed some replies to written questions provided recently. The Minister for Economic Development has responded to a series of questions saying that they are out of order under Standing Order 380. That is not an answer to the question. It is not for Ministers to rule things out of order. Only I may rule on relevance and admissibility. If it appears to a Minister that the question is not in order, then the proper course is to return it to the Clerk’s office or to enter into a discussion with the Clerk’s office, or to enter into a discussion with the Clerk’s office.

That’s David Parker, also the Attorney-General.

I have also seen written questions asking what meetings a Minister has attended between certain dates that have been answered by “What is meant by meetings?” That is not an answer to the question. If a Minister is not clear what a question means, he or she could contact the member who has asked the question in order to seek clarification. A Minister’s office should be able to receive clarification and provide a reply to the question within six working days.

That’s Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters.

The questions that I have mentioned today will be returned to Ministers, and I would expect that they would be replied to urgently. I will continue to review answers to written questions periodically to ensure questions are being addressed.

Good to see.

Richard Baker at the NZ Initiative writes:

Voltaire wrote that one great use of words is to hide our thoughts.

I remembered this when Grant Robertson said the tax working group would improve “fairness” in the tax system. I don’t mean to suggest the Minister was dissembling or concealing some ulterior purpose. While fairness is part of the New Zealand kaupapa, literal “fairness” is however an unhelpful word. What does it mean?

The opposite of fair is unfair and who wants to support unfairness!

Let me illustrate with reference to three traditional models of fairness; equality of outcome, equality of opportunity, and social justice for those in need. Each produces different results.

Let’s use the Rugby World Cup as the common denominator.

An apologist for equality of outcome would argue that fairness prevails when everything is shared equally. 

So the Rugby World Cup should be awarded to each country, say in alphabetical order, over successive years. With a sixteen team competition, each of the 16 competing nations would be the world champion once every 64 years. Be patient Zimbabwe.

This would be an absolute delight for Wales for whom world cup victory is oxymoronic. So too for Scotland, where more people think fondly of the English than play rugby.

This would be fair to all the rugby playing nations. If we extended this to football, we’d also win the World Cup every few hundred years!

A proponent of equality of opportunity would argue that on a level playing field the trophy belongs fairly to those who best use their resources and are smarter and harder working.

Alas, in rugby as in life, the field is seldom level. Under this approach the trophy would go to the wealthy (think England), the lucky (think France and Wayne Barnes), the unscrupulous (think Suzy the waitress) and the unnaturally endowed (think All Blacks).

I put our victories down more the how use use our resources.

A believer in social justice would argue that fairness requires the trophy to go where the need is highest. It is only fair that we look after the least fortunate first. This would benefit the Pacific Islands who survive on the occasional crumb from the rich rugby nations, the Italians who play with passion and little else, and the French who have to decide on match day which team turns up.

The moral? Pick your preferred type of fairness to pick your winner.

Let us hope the tax working group picks its type of fairness with care, clarity and explanation. 

The point is that if the TWG definition of fairness is equality of outcome, then the recommendations it will make are pre-ordained.

The Herald reports:

The three expert reports supplied to the Pike River families for a manned re-entry into the mine’s drift do not fully take into account cost or risk, according to the briefing to the incoming minister.

Some of the mine deficiencies identified in the briefing are information gaps and structural problems that could lead to a risk of asphyxiation or roof collapse, which Solid Energy believed could not be adequately mitigated.

But Pike River Minister Andrew Little says he has more updated information since the briefing that leads him to believe that the prospects for re-entry have improved, adding that the briefing reflected the different political values of the last Government.

“These BIMs are prepared by the previous Government. They really probably suit a set of political circumstances and values that prevailed at that time.

This shows a lack of even the most basic knowledge of BIMs. The previous Government plays zero role in preparing them. Public servants prepare the BIMs with no input from Ministers former or present.

Little is just upset that the advice doesn’t suit him.

Little said the briefing did not “reflect the information I’ve seen more recently”.

“I’ve seen the BIM. But I’ve seen the advice that has been coming to me since … The indications are that it is technically feasible and increasingly physically feasible.”

The briefing, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, outlined Solid Energy’s position that manned re-entry was technically feasible, but the risks could not be adequately mitigated.

I don’t know anyone who has said it is not technically or physically feasible. The issue is about how risky it is, not whether it can be done. His comments are a red herring.

It said some of the obstacles were the crippled integrity of existing roof and wall supports, a lack of full information about the mine’s structure, and the risk of rockfall from strata failure, such as a roof collapse.

The mine had 234 identified hazards that could lead to the mine filling with air that is not breathable, flooding with accumulated water in the mine workings, or exploding from an ignition of flammable gas.

Solid Energy noted that a failure of just one of over 600 controls could lead to injury or entrapment.

It is still Winston’s position that he insists he must be the first one to enter the mine?

A sad editorial from The Guardian:

In the year since Donald Trump was elected, the entertainment world has been largely united in its disdain for his presidency. But a notable voice has been missing from the chorus: that of Taylor Swift, the world’s biggest pop star. Her silence is striking, highlighting the parallels between the singer and the president: their adept use of social media to foster a diehard support base; their solipsism; their laser focus on the bottom line; their support among the “alt-right”.

Personally I find it refreshing that not every celebrity finds the need to share their views on politicians. And to link Swift to Trump simply because she doesn’t do politics is nasty and bullying.

Swift’s songs echo Mr Trump’s obsession with petty score-settling in their repeated references to her celebrity feuds, or report in painstaking detail on her failed romantic relationships (often, there is crossover). The message is quintessentially Trumpian: everyone is out to get me – but I win anyway.

Does this psychobabble really pass as an editorial? Swift sings about failed relationships so that makes her Trump! Hell, half the songs out there tend to be about love and failed love.

By focusing only on her own, extremely profitable, business, Swift appears at first glance to be an apolitical pop star, keen to attract people of all leanings.

Yes. Not every pop star has to be a wannabe politician. We have no shortage of those.

She began her career in country, a genre whose fans have historically identified as Republican (early on, she wrote that “Republicans do it better”, though after Barack Obama’s victory she said she was “so glad this was my first election”). But these days, even heartland country singers are mocking the president. Her silence seems to be more wilful: a product of her inward gaze, perhaps, or her pettiness and refusal to concede to critics. Swift seems not simply a product of the age of Trump, but a musical envoy for the president’s values.

Oh what crap.

The RNZ headline:

NZ unlikely to follow Oz move to ban foreign donations

That is because we already effectively ban them.

The Australian government has unveiled plans to ban political donations from overseas and introduce a register for foreign lobbyists.

Under New Zealand law, political donations from overseas are allowed as long as they don’t exceed $1500.

Or to put it another way, they are banned unless they are under $1,500. The $1,500 is simply a de minimis level at which below it is not worth trying to track donations. If someone gives you $100, you don’t need to check their citizenship or residency.

Deputy Prime Minister and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said National had always found a way around the donations regime.

This is the man who lied to Parliament (and the public and the media) about Owen Glenn’s donation and whose party had many years of false donation returns that they had to correct after they were exposed. If he had any shame he would never ever talk about donations and transparency again.

Stuff reports:

The report of the latest Child Poverty Monitor showed 12 per cent of children, or 135,000, were living in material hardship – without seven or more items, from a total list of 17, which are considered necessary for their wellbeing. That was down from 14 per cent or 155,000 in 2016.

There were 70,000 New Zealand children – or six per cent – who were experiencing the worst material hardship, with households missing out on 9 or more items from the list of 17 – down from 8 per cent or 85,000 last year.

The material hardship stat is the one I think we should focus on. Other measures of poverty are about income inequality which can create perverse incentives such as reducing poverty by making everyone poorer (but the wealthier households more poorer).

Material hardship is about if kids are actually going without stuff which is generally regarded as desirable such as more than one pair of shoes.

“It’s the first time we can say that we’re sure that things aren’t getting worse; it’s the first time there’s been a small drop and it’s genuinely encouraging and cause for cautious optimism,” Becroft said. 

“We’re probably seeing the first initial signs in terms of what the previous Government did, in terms of increasing benefit levels by $25 a week for families with children.

“And it’s the first time we’re probably seeing the flow through of general economic growth.”

But the figures “unsatisfactorily” only told the story to then end of June 2016.

So let’s see what the figures for June 2017 and June 1018 are. They will also be attributable to National. Then it will be interesting to see the June 2019 and June 2020 data and see if Labour can actually match its rhetoric with results.

Stuff reports:

Children are being strangled, soiling themselves in class and threatening suicide as bullying remains “toxic” at a Christchurch school, parents say. …

They sent a letter to the Ministry of Education voting “no confidence” in the school’s leadership in June, and Webb encouraged other parents to speak up.

More than eight families have removed their children from the school this year and others say they would if not restricted by zoning.

Isn’t it sad that parents have to leave their kids in a school which they don’t think is safe for them. Parents should be able to choose to send their kids to another school.

Stuff reports:

A damning new report card into the performance of the Health Ministry has found the agency wanting across a number of areas, including financial sustainability, behaviour and culture and the management of its people. 

The high level performance review, led by Dame Paula Rebstock on behalf of the State Services Commission, painted a picture of a ministry that was striving to reduce health inequities across New Zealand, but hamstrung by poor relationships and funding models across a highly devolved system. 

The release of the report comes days after Director-General of Health Chai Chuah announced his resignation, halfway through a five-year term. He said a change of direction was needed for the ministry, meanwhile Health Minister David Clark has branded the review as a “damning indictment” of the direction of the last Government. 

I agree a change of direction is needed for the Ministry. Its performance has been woeful, including getting the DHB allocation figures wrong for the Budget.

But the Ministry is not the entire health system (thanks God). In terms of actual outcomes, we’ve seen the following:

• From 70% to 94% of ED patients seen within six hours
• From 65% to 100% of cancer patients staring treatment within four weeks
• Immunization rates from 76% to 92%
• Elective surgery procedures from 118,000 to 162,000

The Performance Infrastructure Framework review, or PIF, gave the ministry a “weak” rating for its financial sustainability, and its overall governance.

It was also weak on “values, behaviour and culture”. The ministry scored well on “vision” but it needed to “shift from aspirational statements to bringing the vision, purpose and strategy to life. The strategy needs to move from being thematic to directional”.

“Significant resources” needed to be committed to delivering on the Health Strategy, and that would require “re-prioritisation and decisions to stop some things”.

And the executive leadership team itself, under Chuah, while it “worked together initially”, it had reverted to a “group of individuals”.

“They are technically competent, but do not lead in a systemic way at an enterprise level.”

It is a scathing report, and shows change is needed at the Ministry. If David Clark can successfully institute that change, then that will be a very good thing.

A very good report into the wider issues around the Havelock water crisis. There are many good recommendations. It shows that the status quo of just leave it to local government is not a good one.

You have divided responsibilities between the 76 or so territorial authorities, the 16 regional councils, the 12 DHBs and the various water companies that have been set up by the authorities.

Some key recommendations are:

The secure classification system in section 4.5 of the DWSNZ should be abolished forthwith. The concept of a secure classification is fundamentally flawed as it does not provide a sound or safe basis for dispensing with treatment or reducing monitoring requirements and provides an erroneous and misleading message that the bore water is safe

Basically some water is not treated as the water source is classified as secure. The report says no source can be regarded as secure and all drinking water should be treated. This will be controversial.

The Director-General of Health should promptly provide firm and clear advice to drinking water suppliers that all supplies should be appropriately and effectively treated pending any change to the law and/or the DWSNZ.

This will be an interesting issue for the Greens as they tend to be against adding stuff to “natural” supplies.

Given the existence of a compelling case for dedicated and aggregated suppliers being established as an effective and affordable means to improve compliance, competence and accountability, the Government should make a decisive and definitive assessment of whether to mandate, or persuade, suppliers to establish aggregated dedicated water suppliers.

This is also key. Some Councils have set up supply companies that work within a region, but others do it themselves. As a country we should have say no more than a dozen regional water supply companies, rather than the hotchpot we currently have.

Some local authorities will resist this. It will be interesting to see if the Government will be willing to fight them to do this.