Water Services Legislation Bill

The House is resumed. Members, when the House rose for the evening, we were considering the first reading of the Water Services Legislation Bill. I call—

Helen White.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no; you just say—you just seek the call.

HELEN WHITE: Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Helen White.

HELEN WHITE: I thought you had forgotten my name. Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to take a very short call on this matter, because this is a second bill in a series of bills, and what it is doing is really putting the infrastructure behind an infrastructure plan.

There is a $31 billion deficit in infrastructure every year, according to the Infrastructure Commission. There has been legislation brought in to really make sure that our water pipes and the infrastructure that supply water to all our communities is actually up to scratch. It hasn’t been up to scratch for a very long time and we’ve had some tragedy as a result of that, and we never want to see that repeated.

We also have a situation in Auckland where we can’t swim at a lot of our most beautiful beaches, and that’s because it rained in the weekend, and so we just couldn’t swim in those beaches any more. That’s utterly unacceptable in a city as beautiful as Auckland.

So this piece of legislation just focuses on what my friends called “the nuts and bolts” last night. It’s all the things that really just make things tick. It’s about things like compliance. It’s about infringement. It’s about being able to go on site and actually check the water meters. It’s about pricing and charging structures. It’s about asset management plans, infrastructure plans, and pricing plans. That’s a very necessary part of what we need to do in this to make it work and function. Our committee will be looking at the detail and making sure that it’s fit for purpose. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in absolute opposition to this Water Services Legislation Bill, and I was struck by a thought this morning as the whole Chamber gathered to listen to President Zelenskyy’s address. I thought, here is an example of a leader that is relentlessly focused on the issues that really matter to his people, in stark contrast to a Government we have here focused on ideological, nonsensical, irrelevant projects that will do nothing to enable the lives of the people of New Zealand.

This just feels like a terrible, terrible recurring dream. Just last week, the House passed the Water Services Act—it’s now in law; it’s an Act—and three hours later they drop a 200-page effective amendment bill to it. They’ve been beavering away in their back offices. They didn’t have the guts to bring this to Parliament in the first place, in the first piece of legislation. There are 275 amendments, in this bill, to the original Act that has already been passed. It is a gutless attempt to hide something from the New Zealand public on this, the last day that Parliament is sitting for the year. So they hope to sweep it under the carpet and hope that nobody will notice it’s occurring. I see the press gallery is empty. No one’s here to even report on this stuff, so it’s up to us on this side of the House to actually educate the people of New Zealand as to what this Government is trying to sneak through while everyone goes away on their summer holidays.

This bill more than doubles the length of the Water Services Act. It takes it from six parts to 12. It is an absolute insult to those 88,000 New Zealanders that made submissions on the first bill. They have been roundly ignored. Every party in this House, except Labour, objected to that earlier bill. They know it is wrong, and they are once again objecting to this bill and we stand strongly in condemnation to it as well. This bill makes for some shocking reading. It’s an underhanded attempt from Labour to make changes to its own legislation, and the big thing it didn’t want to talk about in the first bill is what is contained in here—it is the pricing of water.

It is so cynical from Labour to be bringing this up on the last day of Parliament. But it’s not just the pricing; you go through this stuff and see just the layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy and complexity and plans and compliance, and it is entirely convoluted. I just had a look at the regulatory functions in the section on regulatory functions. There’s a list of plans and bureaucracy. We’ve got drinking-water management plans, stormwater management plans, stormwater network rules, service agreements with bill payers, network connections, requirements of network protection rules, notification requirements, and so on and so on and so on.

But the best part, I think, is the enforceable restrictions on drinking water for the use of water conservation. That means “fines”. The enforceable restriction on drinking water—the New Zealand public can read that as “fines”. It is a revenue-gathering vehicle for this Government that was too gutless to bring it out in the first piece of legislation. It goes on to say it is now going to foist upon councils the responsibility of taking on the on-charges of the on-payments because they couldn’t get themselves sorted to do it themselves. Let’s be very clear: Labour has deliberately avoided talking about these technicalities.

I think, however, though, in the short time I’ve got left, the most gobsmacking section in this is the punitive language around compliance and enforcement. This bill creates a director of compliance and enforcement for each of the entities, it decrees that each board will create a compliance and enforcement strategy, it’s going to have compliance officers with what I read as stronger powers than the New Zealand Police. In their comprehensive offence and infringement regime, it’s going to issue them with issues for directions of compliance orders, remedial action, and ways to recover costs. Can you imagine if the New Zealand Police were given these sorts of compliance tools?

This bill is a complete mockery to the 88,000 New Zealanders who made a submission on the first bill. It’s already been set in law. The National Party has said we will repeal it in Government, just like we will the first piece of abominable legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a serious piece of legislation that we are going to be going through, and I speak to it because what is gobsmacking is that the National Party has not even bothered to look at what’s coming through in this bill. If they took the time to actually look at it, there’s a very, very important piece coming through in here about subsidiaries, and that is something that I think the councils, as shareholders in this public entity—the four entities—will be very interested in. It’s this type of information, important information, in here that we need to get to select committee, and that’s why I’m looking forward to seeing this through to the select committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we’ve heard in this House, this bill follows the Water Services Entities Bill that we passed last week. It was well signalled that there was going to be a succession of bills, and we’re going to be talking about another one shortly.

That last bill set up the four entities, and this bill really colours in what it is that those entities can and can’t do. Of course, a lot of the powers and responsibilities referenced in other speeches already exist in some form or other in local government legislation, so I think that is going to be really useful for the select committee to get good advice on how the powers in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Act 1974 and rating powers all interact with this piece of legislation. It’s going to be a good job for the select committee to do. I’m hope I’m able to be a part of it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m looking forward to taking my 10 minutes this morning, I’m just trying to work out where I might start—there’s a plethora of issues to prosecute.

Look, you know, it’s always good to start in a speech, maybe, with some wise words or learned words from wise people. I’ll start with a gentleman, one Jamie Strange, the Labour Hamilton East MP, who announced his retirement, and who said yesterday, “I feel I am better suited for Government than Opposition.”—“I feel I am better suited for Government than Opposition.” Of course, Mr Strange announced his retirement because he didn’t want to go into Opposition. And, see, the Government backbenchers sit there and they wonder why their colleagues are leaving, ahead of going into Opposition, when they stand up and offer 90 seconds to a bill that no one wants—one of the most unpopular bills that I think I’ve seen come before the House in the eight years I’ve been here. And, then, you’ve got Labour MPs openly saying they’re retiring because they don’t want to be in Opposition next year. And they scratch their heads and say, “Why are the polls tanking?” Well, I’ll tell you what, the polls are tanking because the public does not trust you anymore. You’ll spend more time standing next to sports professionals, getting photos, than you will standing up in this House and defending your own bill. That’s what you’re doing at the moment.

Hon Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I don’t think it’s appropriate that the member says that you cannot be trusted, Madam Speaker; I think you can. Both you and I are retiring at the next election. I wish you well, and I think you’re done a disservice with that comment.

MATT DOOCEY: Speaking to the point of order—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no, no, thank you. I just want to do this right, so I’m just going to take a bit of advice.

Look, thank you for that point of order. And, yes, it is the last day of school and it’s a contentious bill, and it’s getting a bit willing. I’d like the House to reflect, first of all, on not bringing the Speaker into the debate. But also let’s not just skate too close to that line of causing offence in the House. I don’t think we’re there in this instance, but I’d like us to play between the posts.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In my view, I do not believe the public trust this Government when they do things like they’ve done with this bill. People will be looking at this speech and wondering whether it’s live or on demand. And, I must say, my on-demand speech from last week, I thought, was pretty good, so I’m not surprised they’re watching it again. But, in fact, we’re actually live because we are debating another bill that was tabled three hours after they rammed through the Water Services Entities Bill last week. Three hours afterwards, they drop a 200-page bill that amends the legislation we passed this week.

And then they wonder why the public is trusting them less and less, because how is the public to trust this Government when they play games like this—a bill that’s in fact an omnibus bill that’s going to amend 25 Acts. It inserts 275 new clauses. It amends a bill we only passed last week. And I remember speaking in this House with the first sequencing of all these water bills, using the analogy that we were flying a plane while we were building it, and now you can see why that actually was happening—because the Government did not want us to see the design of the plane in advance or its destination. That’s why this has been drip-fed through.

But what I can say to the people listening today is make sure you make a submission on this bill. Some 88,000 people made a submission on the Water Services Entities Bill, and, as we know, only 227 were heard. They only went round the country for five days. My plea to the Government is to make sure you hear a lot more submitters for this bill, because, mark my words, you are going to get tens of thousands of submissions. The reason why: people don’t want this bill, and that’s why you’re going to receive a lot of submissions on it. We get lectured by the Government MPs who get up and say for their 90 seconds, “Well, if the Opposition had taken time to look at this bill”—“taken time to look at this bill”. What part does the Government play in actually not putting the bill through last week? Why did you split the bill up? Still haven’t had one Government MP—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate. This is a very willing debate, and the Speaker does not wish to be included.

MATT DOOCEY: Apologies, Madam Speaker. But we would like to hear from the Government callers today, if they could just squeeze it in to their 90 seconds: why is this bill before us on the last day of Parliament? A submission process over the summer break. Answer that. And what I want to know is: how are we now in a position where we had three waters and now we’ve got five waters, and now it’s five waters and some parks? Look at the headlines in the Christchurch Press this week: “Three Waters entity expected to take control of swathe of Christchurch red zone”. The water entity is going to take ownership of ratepayer-owned land and they, the ratepayers, will now have no control over it. This is going to be interesting isn’t it, because, up and down the country, parks of New Zealanders are going to be taken over by the water entities.

I think this bill starts opening up some serious questions about the detail of this bill. It’s no surprise now why they won’t speak to it and why it was held back from last week, and they slip it in this week as well.

Look at the stuff that’s coming through around water charging—that is going to be interesting. I’m looking forward to the select committee process to interrogate—in fact, what are the intentions of the Government around water charging? Because they’re quick to say, “Well, maybe no further increase to rates.” But how is that going to be charged? And look at the compliance and enforcement: obtaining information, including entry to places without a warrant. That will be interesting. There’s a raft of detail in here that, in fact, the Government MPs have challenged us, “If they only read the bill.” Well, that’s an interesting comment. So maybe the Government MPs could stand up in their 90 seconds, or even beg the whip that they can do two minutes, and actually explain some of that detail for the Opposition MPs—or maybe for the public listening, it is a debate. Maybe we could hear in detail around the water charges, around the compliance—

Barbara Edmonds: Do your own work.

MATT DOOCEY: “Do your own work.”, I heard. Ha, ha! All right, it’s up to me now to fill in the blanks from the Government, of course. It’s not for them to go out and sell their own bill. Of course not! Because they’re a one-party State. They don’t need anyone else. They don’t need a mandate from the public. No. It’s up to everyone else to fill in the blanks, because, of course, they’re right. They don’t need to defend themselves because they’re right.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: You know it.

MATT DOOCEY: Here we go. And this is it, isn’t it? This is the arrogance we’re hearing more and more from this Government. So it’ll be very interesting to hear the details around that from the Government MPs. Because I’ll tell you what, there’s a lot of people really concerned with what’s happening with this bill at the moment. And as we know, there’s another a bill ahead of us, after this one is passed as well, which will even implement more detail and more reach under three waters. So I would encourage the Government MPs in their call today to actually explain to New Zealanders some of the things that you will be passing today. Because you’ve put down a challenge to me about reading the bill, I’ll put a challenge down to you: have you read the bill?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): To me? OK, this is the third time I have got to my feet to ask the speaker not to bring the Speaker into the debate. The member has 45 seconds left, and wouldn’t it be a good thing if the member didn’t bring the Speaker into the debate during that short time.

MATT DOOCEY: Apologies, Madam Speaker. So in closing, this is a good example of an arrogant Government who chose not to put this bill through last week. They didn’t want to reveal the detail on purpose, and then they wonder why the public, in my view, is trusting this Government less and less. And that’s reflected in the polls at the moment as they crawl to the end of the parliamentary year, becoming more and more unpopular as their colleagues leave because they don’t want to be in Opposition.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. “Ideological, not significant, trivial, not important”—all wrapped up in disinformation. If the member even bothered to open up page 2 of this bill; it’s only page 2, you only need to read the first and the second page—sorry, that member needs to read the first and the second page, he would see: “Water services are an essential building block for communities. Public health and well-being, better environmental outcomes, economic growth and job creation, housing and urban development, climate change, resilience to natural hazards, and the rights and interests of iwi and Māori all depend on better outcomes for those services.” That is why this bill is important.

Those members on the other side of the House who believe it’s “ideological, not significant, trivial, and not important”: take the time over the summer to do some homework. Read the bill, read the regulatory impact statement, come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and debate and make this bill workable. In the absence of an actual constructive Opposition, it will be left again to this Government to make those hard decisions to make this bill work for the communities that we stand for. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Water Services Legislation Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to Finance and Expenditure Committee