Water Services Entities Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Water Services Entities Bill. Members, we start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 9A and Schedule 1, “Preliminary provisions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on Part 1 of the Water Services Entities Bill. It’s really important to ensure that, from the outset, we continue to highlight that there is need for reform in our current water services delivery approach.

Why? Because in 2016, when the campylobacter outbreak occurred in Havelock North, an inquiry was commenced by the previous Government. Why? Because the findings of that particular inquiry demonstrated that that particular incidence was one that caused a significant contamination and led to further serious highlighting of the water network infrastructure system that was not isolated to Havelock North, and then we commenced a significant investigation in 2017 around just how fragile our water infrastructure network is.

As I come back to Part 1, what we have is the initial architecture of an approach which will enable us to address these very significant issues. In fact, in the purpose clause—and I want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work that they have undertaken—the clarification of the bill is set out in clauses 3(1) and 3(2) in terms of the purpose of the Act.

I want to really ensure that we do not lose sight that this approach means that we will have a sustainable way of funding waters infrastructure; that we will be able to separate balance sheets, in terms of water services entities and councils; that we will be able to implement a good governance regime; that we will be able to uphold Treaty of Waitangi obligations; and that we will be able to ensure greater affordability for ratepayers at a time when the cost of living pressures are significant and great.

In Part 1 of the bill, what we will see is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which makes clear Te Mana o te Wai clarifications. When I look to the work of the select committee, it was actually the Federated Farmers, in their submission, who highlighted that they wanted greater clarification of Te Mana o te Wai and its meaning, which is set out in SOP 306.

What have we done here? We’ve actually brought forward the intent of Te Mana o te Wai as was defined in 2014, under Nick Smith, and said, “Well, we need to treat water as a whole system, right from source protection to discharging back into the environment.” So in the SOP, under clause 6, we’ve got “Te Mana o te Wai—(a) has the meaning set out in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management issued in 2020 under section 52 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and any statement issued under that section that amends or replaces the 2020 statement (and see also sections 4, 5, and 13 of this Act); and (b) applies, for the purposes of this Act, to water (as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991).”

Simply put, it enables us to ensure that, from the point of source and extraction of water for drinking water, right back through the taps, and discharging water through waste water or sewerage into its receiving environment to any water body, we are taking care of the whole system in the application of this particular Act.

I’m anticipating that there will be a number of contributions that may well question two particular intents in Part 1 of the bill, and that’s as it relates to the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Mana o te Wai. If I look to clause 4, it’s very clear that this particular bill will give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Mana o te Wai. They have the dual purpose; they ensure that we’re able to be responsible stewards and kaitiaki of our water resource by catchment, going forward into the future.

This is what will separate New Zealand’s approach to caring for our most precious resource—water—in the way that we deliver services to our community. We’re not just thinking about today; we are thinking about tomorrow. We’re making sure that the whole system of care for water and its use will be taken account of.

I do want to thank the select committee for the range of additions that they’ve made to Part 1. I look forward to the debate.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I want to acknowledge the Minister—I am looking forward to a continuous period of debate through what is a significant bill; six parts, and obviously we’re looking at Part 1 first up. But I just wanted to go back through some of the Minister’s opening statements in regards to this part, and the concept right at the start that the Minister articulated around the need for reform. I want to make it crystal clear to everyone out there—and all those sitting buckled in on the couch at home with a bit of popcorn ready to go through this committee stage over the next day or so—that the National Party absolutely believe that reform is required in the water services space. The point where we disagree with the Government is the mechanism in terms of how we undertake that change, and I think sometimes that point quite simply has been lost—or potentially used against, to say that we aren’t supportive of reform; we absolutely are, and I think through this process and through the conversation we have at the committee stage, we’ll get into some of that detail in regards to questions around alternative models and other aspects.

I think the Minister also outlined, in her opening statements, the catalyst for this conversation, and I acknowledge that members of the National Party were engaged as part of those conversations following the events that occurred in Havelock North—and I think we all acknowledge that and the impact that that had on that community and the broader community. But the reality is, that event, while absolutely tragic, and the causes etc. have been well traversed—it doesn’t reflect the fact that the entire system in New Zealand is broken. I think this is a point at which, when we look at the broader conversation around this reform agenda, we acknowledge that there are areas that do need improvement; we would join with that, but we don’t believe fundamentally that the entire system is broken. I think that concept as well, we will traverse as we go through this conversation.

The Minister outlined the “Purpose” clause, clause 3, and we’ve got a number of Supplementary Order Papers on the Table there and we’ll work our way through those over the period as well, including one at clause 3. But the other aspects that the Minister talked about noted around sustainable funding balance sheets, the governance model and, actually, the fact that the Water Services Entities Bill is, in effect, some form of solution to the cost of living crisis, or dealing with the underpinning of that. I’ll say right from the outset that we don’t support that premise, and we don’t support—and haven’t been able to substantiate in detail—those statements either. So we can get into that a little bit later on.

The Minister has also outlined the terms of the Supplementary Order Paper that she’s put on to the Table—and we’ll work through elements of that as we go through. So let’s get into Part 1 and particularly around the purpose clause at clause 3, which is the first clause in the Act. And the questions that I have for the Minister are as follows—and I think the purpose of this bill has been the conversation that the select committee process has traversed right from the start, in terms of what is the problem that we’re trying to fix, and do we have confidence that this legislation on the Table will deal to and find solutions to that problem? I think that’s been, right from the outset, the aspect which we’ve been unable to substantiate. And that’s why National have been consistent throughout this process that we do oppose this bill.

But in regards to clause 3, around the purpose of the bill, I’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table, Supplementary Order Paper 304, which, basically, inserts a new clause, 3AA, on page 12 above line 20. And quite simply, this Supplementary Order Paper amendment basically amends the Act in order that this Act is repealed on the day after the date of Royal assent, and some may say “Well, that seems a little bit extreme”, but the reality is that throughout the select committee process, it was crystal clear that there is significant opposition to this reform across this country. There is significant opposition in terms of the bill that is on the Table and lack of confidence that that will solve the problem, and alternative models that have been tabled that believe that there is a better pathway here in order to deal with the problem—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just a reminder to the member, we’re still in a general debate speech—specifically now to the part, please.

SIMON WATTS: No, no, that’s all right—so the amendment that I’ve got on the Table under 3AA is a repeal of that legislation, and it is our belief that if we put that through, then we can take this back to a position where we can actually listen to the other amended alternative models that are on the Table and we’ll continue on through there.

The second aspect I want to raise is in regards to clause 4, and we’ll get into this in a little bit of detail as well—particularly around the Te Mana o Te Wai statements. There’s been a lot of conversation, and I think rightly so—questions around that aspect of the bill, and, in particular, in regards to clause 4(4), the addition by the committee around coastal and geothermal waters.

And don’t forget that this bill, at the outset, has been referred to in the public domain as three waters. But, in effect, the changes that have been made in regards to clause 4 make this legislation—you know, you could call it five waters. That opens up a significant element of other issues and complications, and we have some significant concerns around the implication in regards to what clause 4 has been modified around. So I’m also interested to hear from the Minister in regards to the rationale in terms of the addition of those two other elements: the reality around the unintended consequences of inclusion of both coastal and geothermal waters as part of this broader legislation. Why was it put in at such a late stage in the conversation, without any ability, really, for people to be able to make submissions in regards to that? And I think that’s important because of the fact that that change in clause 4 was not there when we had the 88,327 or so submissions, and so therefore it has subsequently raised significant public interest, and I think it is reasonable that the Minister articulates why and the rationale for the inclusion of those aspects.

The other point around that—and we can get into that in some future calls—is in regards to the actual implication around differentiation between coastal and, in effect, the freshwater mechanisms that come through from streams and rivers that go out to sea. I think there’s been quite a few questions out there in the public domain in terms of where do you draw the line around that, and what are the implications around those statements, which we’ll get into in future elements—around who has the ability to input into the drafting of those. So I’ll leave it at that at this stage, and look forward to the Minister’s contribution.

I’m pleased to take a call early on on this particular issue because, fundamentally, it cuts to the core of the benefit of the Te Mana o te Wai perspective in relation to water bodies. What we know from source protection of water in order to drink and to be able to transfer through the pipes and perhaps waste-water plants, and also in relation to stormwater, is that when water goes back to its receiving environment, it’s not good enough to treat two waters in isolation of what happens to water through its whole life cycle. In fact, water stakeholders admit this. They say when you think about the way in which we look after water, we have to think about the whole life cycle, which is why, when we bring forward the Te Mana o te Wai definition as it currently stands—it’s not a new definition as it currently stands—we need to think about water source protection: taking water for drinking or other purposes to its treatment and then back into its receiving environment, and that could be in coastal areas.

I’ll take an example from my local community. It’s been a longstanding concern that waste-water discharge into Raglan Harbour has been not good enough. And do you know what? We have far too many waste-water treatment plants operating under expired consents, and I know that the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard this, because it was information that officials offered up. And why that’s important then—when it comes to coastal water or geothermal water—is because when we think about Rotorua and when we think about Taupō, where there are pockets of thermal waters that bubble up into those lakes and where there are discharge pipes that go into the lake, we need to be assured that when we return water through our treatment plants back into these water bodies, we are doing no more harm to the environment. And that’s why Te Mana o te Wai approach will, in fact, improve the current state of the way in which we are thinking about the whole life cycle of water.

But let me come back to the primary question of the member Simon Watts: what is the problem we are trying to fix? Core to the premise of water reform, we know that councils are constrained in the way that they currently fund water infrastructure. There is always an offset and a trade-off that councils are making between what’s above the ground and what’s below the ground, and it is becoming unsustainable and, sadly, unaffordable for ratepayers. That is a problem we’re trying to fix, because there have been decades, if not decades upon decades, of under-investment in our water infrastructure system. So by separating the balance sheet and finding a financially sustainable way to fund infrastructure which does not create too much of a burden for councils or the Government, we are actually preparing communities now going forward into the future to be able to fund this necessary infrastructure that underpins our quality of life. And gosh knows we need it, because the modelling that the select committee heard—of which that member was a part of—showed us that through the councils’ long-term plans (LTP), aggregating their LTP numbers for 10 years, we’re going to need about $120 billion. But if you factor in things like greater resilience and the impact of natural weather events, that number then escalates to about $185 billion a year. This is unaffordable for councils as it currently stands—unaffordable.

So if we do not find a way to fix this challenge, we are dooming generations of current and future ratepayers to bear this cost, and it is far too great. That’s why we are coming up with a solution. It’s not simply good enough for that member to say that repealing the Act provides a solution. It might be politically expedient, but it does not provide communities who desperately need a solution with a way forward, and that’s why we won’t be voting for that particular Supplementary Order Paper by the member. We also need to ensure that when we talk about the importance of water, we’re actually acting in a way that is consistent with those types of statements.

And I’ve often heard the member speak on the three water system, and I really want to try and understand the merits of the views that he brings to this House, but when you hear criticisms rather than solutions, you will appreciate that it’s very difficult to try and see your way through as a responsible member of this House to try and understand what the alternative is. Right now, there’s nothing. That member is presenting no alternative to the House, but I still want to try and ensure that we, as a responsible Government looking for a solution, can appreciate some of the perspectives that he brings to the House. But repealing this Act with no solution is not a way forward. In fact, ignoring good evidence is not a way forward, so we won’t be supporting those amendments that he’s put up.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, thank you for coming to the House tonight to present your case for this bill. You know that the ACT Party has opposed the foundation, the principles, of this bill because the ACT Party fundamentally disagrees with the approach taken by this Government when it comes to centralisation, when it comes to allocating rights to special interest groups, to hapū, iwi, and Māori based on who their grandparents were. We’ve raised concerns that are validated by the officials and advisers like Standard & Poor’s that the affordability, the financial model, balance sheet separation, none of the objectives that the Minister has set for this legislation to solve the issue of three waters funding, finance, and delivery, levelling up infrastructure across communities, catching up with the lack of maintenance, providing for new infrastructure in communities that need to grow—this bill does not deliver a regulatory framework to deliver those objectives. It creates a far more complicated environment for the provision of water infrastructure.

So, Minister, I have some specific questions for you. When it comes to Te Mana o te Wai, you refer often to the fact that Te Mana o te Wai is a concept that was developed under a previous National Government at a time when there was a National Minister for the Environment: Nick Smith.

It seems like, with the best of intentions, to express how all Kiwis feel about water, whether we’re fishers, kayakers like myself, if we want to play in the water, if we want our kids to swim in a river, or if we have a need for water for our businesses, whether that’s farming or primary production, like in Hawke’s Bay—where they absolutely depend on being able to get water from rivers and from aquifers to irrigate crops that sustains industry like, for example, fruit and vegetable canning, which employs hundreds of people in highly paid jobs that otherwise wouldn’t exist without having access to the water to grow the crops in the first place. When we’ve seen Te Mana o te Wai statements and those principles applied in resource management decision-making into water conservation orders for rivers like the Ngaruongo River—if I’ve got that pronunciation—

Hon Eugenie Sage: Ngaruroro.

SIMON COURT: —correct. Eugenie Sage might want to correct me on that.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Ngaruroro.

SIMON COURT: Ngaruroro River, which recently has been subject to a water conservation order which will restrict the amount of water available by about 40 percent, and that all comes from the primary producers, which means that there won’t be, during dry periods, crops that can be harvested that can go to the canning factory that can then end up on our supermarket shelves. The decision makers have cited time and again, “Te Mana o te Wai directs us to leave water in the river.”, and yet, if we think about the opportunity for places like Hawke’s Bay to continue to be the food bowl of New Zealand and somewhere from where we export food to the rest of the world—well, there can be water in the river. We could build dams and storage, we could build pipelines, and we could build networks so that there was always water available. The concern that ACT has is that with this focus exclusively on the health of the river at the expense of communities or farming families—people who produce food, fruit, vegetables, as well as livestock, sheep, beef, dairy—the needs of communities are not included.

When we look at the provisions of the bill, the bill states quite clearly that only iwi and hapū are able to provide Te Mana o te Wai statements, and that these water services entities must give effect to them. This bill ignores the needs of communities, ignores the needs of farmers and primary producers and all the people whose jobs depend on growing stuff, and for that reason alone, the ACT Party would object to this bill. It does not solve the issue that the Minister states needs to be solved, which is how do we ensure clean drinking water and that the environment that we operate in—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Simon Court.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Chair. It doesn’t solve the issue of how to allocate water fairly, how to mitigate the risks of contaminants ending up in drinking-water supplies but also how to ensure that we actually can develop the regions—those places where we grow things—and our cities, our urban environments.

So what ACT proposes is an amendment to Te Mana o te Wai in clause 3, the purpose of the bill. We propose replacing Te Mana o te Wai with the words “regional water quality”, because every community would agree that water quality is the single measure of whether these reforms are successful. Terms like Te Mana o te Wai have an important meaning to a large group of people in our communities who came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and said that that’s important to them. It describes their connection to their ancestors, which the rest of us don’t have.

But when we come down to brass tacks, what is this about? It’s about water quality for drinking water and then control over the water resource that we all need for farming, primary production, for industry, for manufacturing, and, of course, for drinking water, and that there must be enough water in the rivers, in the aquifers to sustain the environment. That’s why ACT proposes in our amendment to clause 3 to replace the term “Te Mana o te Wai” with “regional water quality”. We think that every member in this House would understand that approach.

Then I want to come to clause 4. We propose, in clause 4, to remove geothermal and coastal waters from consideration under this bill. Now, Minister, you’ve stated that, of course, geothermal waters come out of the ground in places like Rotorua and Taupō, even Northland. Hot Water Beach in Coromandel—geothermal waters come out of the ground. At Hot Water Beach in Coromandel, you can take a spade, you can take the kids, you dig a hole, and as long as you’re careful, you can dig a decent hole. It will fill up with hot water, but you had better test it before you hop in. It could be very hot; it could burn you.

Now, it doesn’t make any sense if we’re talking about three-waters infrastructure, Minister, to include geothermal waters in consideration of how we supply drinking water, how we manage waste-water discharges, and, potentially, stormwater in the urban environment, and, in those catchments, to include geothermal waters. When we consider coastal waters—well, look, every raindrop that falls on New Zealand, no matter which piece of infrastructure it passes through, ends up in the sea. So to think that a water infrastructure regulator is going to be able to manage that from the top of the mountain out to sea appears to be fanciful.

Then I want to come to clause 9A in Part 1, the interests that the Minister claims and that this bill purports to enshrine that iwi and hapū, or Māori, have in fresh water—in fact, in three-waters assets, because that’s what this bill is about. It’s about pump stations. It’s about concrete pipes. It’s about horrible things like trash screens on the inlet to the sewage-treatment plant, Minister.

I asked a question of the Minister Nanaia Mahuta as to what rights and interests do Māori have in three waters assets. The Minister’s response was: “None, beyond that of anyone else in our community.” I think that answer gives the lie to the proposed objectives of this reform. We know Minister Megan Woods, today in the House, announced funding for three-waters infrastructure to enable housing growth in places like Hamilton. We have the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, which will be the vehicle to deliver an upgrade to the Moa Point Wastewater Treatment Plant in Wellington when that’s approved.

Minister, I propose that there is no justification for the inclusion of co-governance and the provisions in this bill for iwi and hapū exclusively to give Te Mana o te Wai statements. So, Minister, I would like you to provide, if it’s at all possible, any justification you think there is for why you’ve allocated special rights and interests to a group of people because of who their grandparents were in the management of our three-waters assets—Minister.

Mr Chair, I’ll give the member the courtesy of a considered response. There were a number of issues that you did raise in your contribution. Firstly, it’s a little bit clearer to understand the position of ACT, unlike members on this side of the House. At least ACT’s been really clear. Fundamentally, they don’t like the premise of this approach to reform because at the heart of it is a public model of water service delivery where we do not support privatisation. I’ve heard the member in this House say many times what his particular position is, and there has been a privatisation element to it which this Government does not support.

Secondly, let me come to the issue that the member referred to in relation to written questions, when he asked, “What rights do Māori have in three water assets?” Māori themselves have said they are quite happy with councils continuing to own the water network, and that’s clearly set out in the bill. Councils will clearly continue to own their current interests in the water network, which is debt and liability, and that will sit alongside other councils within the make-up of their entity—and iwi do not want to have an interest in that. In fact, councils can retain that particular interest and that is why within the substance of the bill a shareholding interest for councils only will remain.

The other element to the question—because there were lots of legs to the question that the member asked—was it’s not clear what the regulatory environment is for water, and that’s because the regulatory aspects or features of the system do not sit within the Water Services Entities Bill. We established Taumata Arowai to set drinking water standards and the regulatory framework that will fall from that, and oversight over waste water and stormwater to ensure that features informing the regulatory environment could be better understood. Also, we made very clear, in so far as discharges back to receiving environments, that regional councils will retain the regulatory function for waste water and stormwater.

But let me then arrive at why we thought it was important to bring forward the definition of Te Mana o te Wai that was defined in 2014 with the interests of a range of stakeholders in mind, including the farming community. If we ensure that the concept and approach to looking after water from source protection to its full use—whether it be for drinking or irrigation or food production and things like that—and back to the way in which we return water back into the receiving environment, in fact, the Te Mana o te Wai definition makes absolute sense when we think about source protection and discharging back into the natural environment, albeit water bodies. And that is why we’re taking this approach forward.

The other thing is that, in so far as the concerns that the member raises around wellbeing, economic developments, utilisation of water beyond drinking water, I think the select committee fully considered all those aspects and clarified through the definition in the bill how that can be given account of.

The last thing I’ll come back to is I greatly do appreciate, although I am extending beyond Part 1, the fact that the Finance and Expenditure Committee really were at pains to ensure that in the definition aspects of the bill they went through and better clarified what was meant on a number of fronts. And I just, in a light touch, highlight, for example, the importance of further refining the waste-water network and giving definition there of what a water services infrastructure, water supply network means within the context of the legislation, even to the extent where there was greater clarification on definitions around the stormwater network and the green stormwater infrastructure. I appreciate the valuable additions in Part 1 of the bill to better clarify what we are talking about.

Now, this debate will go all over the show if we don’t come back to the core premise. Ultimately, we need to find a way to sustainably fund investment in water infrastructure to underpin regional growth, to enable local voice and prioritisation of how that happens for better drinking and environmental outcomes through a public model of service delivery. That’s what this bill is about.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Minister, thank you for engaging in the debate this evening. I am going to ask two different questions on Part 1. The first is on Te Mana o te Wai. Now, in the national policy statement on freshwater 2020, it spells out a hierarchy of obligations in terms of Te Mana o te Wai. The first is prioritising “the health and well-being of water”. The second is prioritising the health needs of people—and it specifically says, in brackets, “(such as drinking water)”. The third is “the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing”.

My question, Minister, is: how does this obligation of hierarchies, prioritising water above the drinking needs of people, reconcile with a proverb such as “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. / What is the most important thing in the world? The people, the people, the people.”? If the hierarchy of obligations sets the health of the water above the need for people to drink and above the need for people to make a living, how can that be reconciled? I would appreciate an explanation on that, because this Part 1 makes it very clear that all persons performing or exercising duties, functions, or powers under this Act must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai. It also says that all persons performing or exercising duties, functions, or powers under the Act must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai to the extent that Te Mana o te Wai applies to those duties, functions, or powers. Given that hierarchy of obligations, I think it’s really important to clarify what is meant by that.

The second is that all persons performing or exercising duties, functions, or powers under this Act must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, and I would ask if you could clarify what those principles are and why they have not been defined in the interpretation clause of this bill?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I refer to Part 1, clause 3, “Purpose”, and subclause (1) of that: “The purpose of this Act is to enable long-term, sustainable improvements in the safety, quality, resilience, accessibility, affordability, efficiency, and performance of (a) water services; and (b) water services infrastructure.” I’m very keen for the Minister to outline in absolute detail, with evidence and research, just how that enabling of much-improved affordability, accessibility, efficiency, and performance is going to occur.

If I refer back, this Water Services Entities Bill, colloquially known as three waters—and, in fact, now “five waters”—is the second in a series of this Government’s centralisation ideology; the first, of course, being the combining of the vocational education sector. There are many similarities here, and I’m very keen that the same mistakes are not repeated. We and the tertiary education sector were told by Minister Hipkins that the centralisation would bring about improvements in quality and accessibility and affordability and efficiencies and performance, and the sector, in many ways, feel they have been quite misled over that because, of course, the reforms have failed spectacularly. There are many similarities in the lead-up process of this centralisation, so the majority of submitters on this bill were opposed to the bill. It was the same with the combining of the polytech sector—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’ve had a good two minutes of general stuff. The bill, please, or the part of the bill, in particular.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Chair. So I suppose what I’m wanting to make sure is that mistakes are learnt from that so that Minister Mahuta, who I feel much more charitably towards, doesn’t find herself in the same mess that Minister Hipkins has found himself in. Also, that the due diligence process can be—and perhaps it was explained more in the select committee process, but I know there will be a lot of members of the public watching this who will want to know that a due diligence process has been worked through seriously, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): On Part 1, please.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Sorry, Mr Chair, I’m talking about the due diligence process for Part 1: the purpose, and enabling the accessibility, affordability, efficiency to be improved. So what I’m asking is for the Minister to give us, very clearly, the evidence and the research that shows that this bill will improve the long-term sustainability of all those matters stated in the purpose, clause 3(1)—the improvements in safety, quality, resilience, accessibility, affordability, efficiency, and performance—because it’s very easy to say those things. My reflection was that those same sort of things were said in the lead up to the centralisation of the polytechs, but, in fact, when we go back now, in hindsight, looking at the due diligence of that process, it was deficient, and those promises were actually misleading. Those things have not occurred.

This, of course, is a much bigger concept, a much costlier concept, and so I believe that the general public have a very vested interest in knowing what the research, what the evidence has been. I’ve heard the same things from my local authority, that the financial modelling has been fundamentally flawed in this, just as it was in the centralisation of polytechs. So is that the basis of what is being relied on? I believe the public and this House deserve to be told that.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to ask the Minister a few questions about green stormwater infrastructure. I imagine there’s quite a lot of rural interest in this. Actually, there’s certainly a lot of interest that I have heard. Can you please—and this is in Part 1, clause 6 “Interpretation”—define for the committee tonight what you deem “green stormwater infrastructure”? Because I know anyone worth their salt will be looking at this as it’s written here in the legislation, saying “Well, that could be anywhere.” It could be anywhere in rural New Zealand that happens to capture fresh water and by virtue ends up in any canal, river, stream, lake, dam—you name it—and invariably in the sea. So, Minister, this has the potentiality to erode private property rights—and private property rights are tantamount to all things ACT. Can you please, for the love nor money of it, explain to this House what green stormwater infrastructure will mean?

Does the Minister have a mapped understanding of the tens of thousands of canals, creeks, local drainage board catchments, and the provisions that are made at a local level and the asset management of these—and separate this out from the legislation and give some pause and clarity to what that will mean to the average farmer anywhere in New Zealand? Where will governance go, where will the funding models go, and how will this affect private property rights, if at all, Minister?

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much—patience helps. Can I acknowledge the Minister and the detailed and comprehensive engagement with the bill as developed and with the House tonight.

The Green Party recognises that Government has a mandate for this legislation, and it has the majority to pass it through. Our position has been one of constructive engagement, seeking changes through the select committee, and then tabling some Supplementary Order Papers to seek some further changes.

One of those—and it relates to Part 1 “Preliminary provisions”, clause 6 “Interpretation”—is around stormwater. I would encourage the previous speaker, Mr Cameron, to visit Ōtautahi Christchurch, because the city council has implemented green stormwater infrastructure to a very large degree.

Christchurch is built on a floodplain. It’s got a high water table in some areas, it’s got the Pacific Ocean on one side, the Waimakariri River to the north. It has had some significant floods in the past, and so the drainage board that was established in the early colonial days very much had a focus on efficient carrying away of stormwater. That was the council’s focus.

But over recent decades, about the last 20 to 30 years, it’s focused much more on recognising other values—ecology, landscape, public recreation, heritage, culture, places of mahinga kai—not just drainage. So we now see the Christchurch City Council having the largest native planting in the city, with 100,000 plants going into the ground, as part of the Eastman and Sutherlands stormwater retention basins and wetlands. They cover 80 hectares. It recognises that in the upper Heathcote it’s a major area for subdivision and growth.

The Greens’ concern is that councils like Ōtautahi Christchurch strongly called, as did Auckland, for stormwater to remain with councils because of that connection to place-making, to providing other recreational assets and facilities in new areas for development.

These big stormwater natural wetlands green stormwater infrastructure have been phenomenally successful in Ōtautahi in preventing flooding in the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River—which was frequent—and so my questions to the Minister are: why would a water service entity which is wanting to ensure that its charges are low invest the millions that the city council has spent in providing for stormwater infrastructure that provides for other values and not just the efficient drainage and carriage of stormwater?

How can the bill guarantee that water services entities will have that much broader vision? What weight will be given to council views if the councils want to retain areas like Eastman and Sutherlands Basin, rather than have them transferred to the water service entities, given that those wetland areas have got kilometres of walking tracks, cycling tracks, they’re heavily used by local people as recreational areas and they are not just for the carrying away of stormwater?

What mechanisms—because the select committee did consider quite carefully the definition of stormwater, we added in the green stormwater infrastructure—will provide the certainty that we’ll have the same breadth of values being implemented in stormwater management, as has happened with councils?

Given that there has not been a strong case established in the regulatory impact statement that stormwater should be transferred, why is the Government so committed to proceeding with it when the entities will have more than enough to do, dealing just with waste water and drinking water?

Let me come to the new issues that have emerged in the House before responding to the other questions. In relation to green stormwater infrastructure, what we know is that within urban areas, land and infrastructure can deliver multiple outcomes and services for three waters: the transport system, the recreation amenity values, and for the environment, are all but some examples. These approaches have been identified as mixed assets within the context of waters infrastructure. If the function of a mixed-use asset for infrastructure or land has stormwater as a predominant use, then it would transfer to the water services entity—that came up as a question in the House last week and I clarified that. If the predominant use of an asset or infrastructure is not stormwater, such as a park or recreational reserve, for example, then that asset will not transfer and it will remain with the council. I think it’s an important clarification within the context of the two last contributions that have been made.

However, where stormwater is not the predominant use of an asset or infrastructure, or land is critical to the function of the stormwater system, then the proposed water service entity and territorial authority or transport corridor manager—for example, New Zealand Transport Agency—must establish an agreement to manage the interface between any stormwater function and other predominant function of that asset, infrastructure, or land. That’s going to be an important element of how to bring these things together, and those relevant parties who continue to manage that infrastructure.

So where a stormwater network infrastructure transfers to a water service entity, the expectation is that existing and future public access will continue. And that goes to the point that has often been raised by that member of the House in relation to green water infrastructure—unless there’s a specific health and safety risk.

I also want to make clear, through my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s been tabled in the House, that the clarification of predominant use in relation to stormwater is included. That has been on the basis of our stormwater technical working group advice and the way that they considered these mixed-use assets.

Let me come to the SOP that Eugenie Sage has tabled in the House—that’s SOP 307. I’m inclined to support the premise of that particular SOP, because it will require water service entities to consider if there are green solutions to infrastructure problems, which is the whole scenario that the member has raised, and I welcome that contribution because we know that there are some councils who have innovated their response to ensure that when it comes to stormwater it doesn’t necessarily have to be swales and pipes under the ground. We can make better use of the land and the environs within a particular context. It’s a helpful change that the member has put forward in her SOP, and shifts the emphasis—particularly in the area of stormwater infrastructure—to the way the broader catchment works. So it’s complementary to the way in which the natural environs are. Solutions like this have become industry standard in many areas as green solutions. Again, as the member has pointed out, rather than pipes we can look to green solutions, as I’ve already said.

Water-sensitive design is the future for good urban design planning and placemaking, and that’s what this Government wants to see where it makes sense. It can happen in urban areas and provincial areas alike, and, certainly, in small rural communities it can make a critical difference to quality of life outcomes. So I welcome the member’s questions in that regard.

Can I just come to then the question around Te Mana o te Wai and the hierarchy of needs that the member had asked about. The reason why there is a hierarchy of needs—which roughly go water, people, then communities—is that if we want the sustainable and efficient use of water we have to make sure that we are not taking more than we need.

We have to make sure that the ecosystem is looked after. In order to protect the ecosystem then there must be at least a minimum ecological use range that we recognise before we start taking water for drinking, for irrigation, for horticultural purposes, for growth and development. If we do not do that, then our sacred and precious resource of water will dissipate very quickly.

Water security will be an issue for us because of climate change. That’s why we recognise the hierarchy of needs within Te Mana o Te Wai. Can I just go—[Bell rings]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The honourable Minister.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence.

At the heart of Te Mana o Te Wai—and I will be at pains to reaffirm and affirm and restate and state—is the sustainable use of our water resource, not just for Māori but for everybody. But that concept that water is an interconnected system and must be treated as such, as a sacred and precious resource for this generation and the next generation, is a welcome addition to the way that we think about water. When we consider the position of water: that nobody owns it, we all own it, then we need to look after it. When we consider that our kids and their kids rely on us to make good intergenerational decisions, then adopting Te Mana o Te Wai into the way that we’re thinking about water service delivery is a welcome addition to the current state.

Let me come to the point that the member raises in relation to centralisation—not all centralisation is bad. When it comes to water service delivery we have 67 councils currently delivering water, and we need to think about some of the general inefficiencies that fall from that. We can’t go in to really strong procurement pipelines in a significant area of infrastructure in a way that we can get greater advantage. That’s why, at the heart of this model, scale and aggregation delivers us a set of solutions where we aggregate and leverage the benefit of scale. That’s where small communities will actually be the greatest benefactors. That’s where, in this instance, the model that we’re proposing in terms of aggregation and the benefits of scale will ensure that the cost impost on ratepayers lessens over time—lessens over time. The biggest benefactors of this approach will be those in our small communities or those communities who are ageing out, where you have got people on fixed incomes living in small communities, who won’t be able to afford to pay for the range of services that they so desperately deserve but cannot afford. This model, in so far as water service delivery is concerned, will help alleviate that pressure.

Now, the member also pointed to the definitions in the legislation around safety, quality, resilience, accessibility, affordability, and efficiency as defined in clause 3(1), the purpose of the Act. Look, let’s just talk about efficiency—well, actually, let’s talk about the expression of that statement. It actually sets out what we want to see going forward in the future. Because if we look at an inefficient system, the greatest challenge we have in our water network is the amount of leakage that is occurring. Nobody wants to talk about that, but people know that if the pipe is leaking and then their water bill is going up, something’s wrong. We don’t want to see that. We know that greater efficiency can be achieved by addressing the issues of leakage, but you have to understand your water network to even get to that point. And what we found out, in the last five years of accumulating evidence, is that many councils are not able to quantify a simple thing like leakage and the cost impost that that causes their ratepayers. The solutions that we have will lead us to a pathway of greater efficiency of use: reducing leakage and improving the way in which we’re using water, because water conservation goes hand in hand with efficiency as well.

Affordability: I think I’ve spoken quite a bit about that, based on the costs that councils have offered up. And I know members on that side of the Chamber have critiqued the figures that we’ve put up, but we have ensured that many of the cost analyses have been peer reviewed. Much of the costs came through a request for information (RFI) process that we embarked on with councils because we wouldn’t have been able to magic up the numbers. We had to ask councils themselves to go through a thorough RFI process, line by line, and help us get accurate information in order to model the features that inform this particular model. It was councils who came up with the information.

When we think about resilience, this is where climate change comes into play, because right now, if our immediate challenge is addressing repairs and maintenance and then responding to growth, we won’t be able to have a resilient system until we can do the core features of strengthening our water network. But do you know what? Every time there’s a significant natural weather event, we know how vulnerable our water network is, because stormwater goes out into our rivers and lakes. We know that waste often is on our streets when there’s a big flood event and we know that those vulnerable communities who cannot now afford to pay for good resilient infrastructure will be deserving as a result of these changes.

The time has come for me to suspend the sitting. The committee will resume at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning. Good evening.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)