Water Services Entities Bill

Members, we now come to debate clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Well, after nine hours of debate, we are nearing the end on what will be, for many, a memorable debate on a bill that is destined to fail. But the point that I want to raise in regards to clause 2 around the commencement is in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I have on the Table, 303. Ha! That’s interesting, that in itself, just coming from a farming acronym. But anyway, 303—we won’t worry what that is. The purpose of this Supplementary Order Paper is to, in effect, replace clause 2(2), because it’s an interesting addition that was made to this bill. So right from the outset of this conversation, right back at the first reading conversation—I don’t know if you remember that, Mr Bayly, first reading?

Now, this was going to be an open and transparent process that was going to have full consultation and all of that. But one of the key aspects at that point was around the fact that this bill would come into effect on 1 July 2024, and that’s fair enough. That was well signalled. It gave adequate time in regards to making sure that due time was given in order to implement this bill. But the additional clause that was added in pretty rapidly after was this clause around the Order in Council, which basically provides a mechanism for the Government to be able to decide at a point earlier than 1 July 2024 if they want to implement the remaining non-transitional provisions of this legislation. And why this is an issue is because it places in an additional degree of complexity in terms of this but also goes against the principles in terms of the fact that this bill would be operational for the non-transitional provisions not until 1 July. So my Supplementary Order Paper in this regard is quite simple, and I’d ask the Minister in the chair to consider replacement of that clause and removal and deletion of clause 2(3), which is on page 12, lines 16 and 17.

I guess, just in terms of the closing remarks in regards to this bill, in regards to that commencement, it is pretty clear over the period that we’ve discussed this evening and last night and this morning that National strongly opposes this bill. It is our intention that if we are in Government next year, we will repeal this legislation and replace it soon after. And that is for the reasons around the fact that we believe these assets should remain in local ownership, we don’t support 50:50 co-governance, and we believe that the solutions to this problem do not lie within this bill, but, actually, the solutions lie within our communities, and we need to work with our communities, not against them, in order to implement solutions that are applicable for the cities, regions, or provinces in which people live. One-size-fits-all, top-down centralisation will not solve or create sustainable solutions for water services in this industry. And we’ve been open right from the start in terms of wanting to work constructively around dealing with some of those bottom lines, but I acknowledge the Government has deemed those bottom lines were not ones that they were willing to change. So I just wanted to note that for the record and Hansard. That is our expectation.

I thank everyone who has made submissions in regards to this bill over this process, and, I’m sorry, in which we have not been able to reflect those changes. That is the reality of where we are, but we will continue to fight this, and if we’re in Government next year, we will repeal and replace it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m speaking to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 298 in the name of my good colleague Simon Watts, who has done a sterling job of identifying the key issues relating to this bill.

This SOP is about the title of the bill. I think that the specified title is an absolute misnomer; it is actually quite incorrect, because it talks about “Water Services Entities Bill”. I think, really, what this bill is about is emasculation of the rights of New Zealanders, of the ratepayers of all councils, and of councils themselves. This bill removes and deprives people of a right. That’s why it is an emasculation bill, and, in some ways, the bill should actually be called that.

My good colleague has put up an alternative title. The first part is about reflecting the number of entities. Of course, we’re going from 67 entities down to four very large, ginormous entities, driven off the back of someone sitting in Scotland saying that, in his divine view, we should have a minimum of 800,000 people, even though we’ve had some of New Zealand’s best economists dispute that, but they got set aside in a matter of minutes by the Department of Internal Affairs, the advisers to this committee. So the proposal is to call it the “Mega-Entities Bill”. There could be many alternatives to that: “ginormous”, “misaligned”—

💬 Simeon Brown: Huge.

—“huge”, but—

Tim van de Molen: Gargantuan.

Oh, “gargantuan”. That’s a very good word. There are many, many titles that could reflect how we’re just squashing these into four entities, yet there’s unknown rationale for many of us as to why it is specifically four, particularly when one spans the Cook Strait.

The other aspect is, when it was introduced, we talked about three waters, and everyone knows about three waters, and I think some of the advertising talks about three waters, doesn’t it? It talks about: clean water, drinking water, waste water, and stormwater. Of course, we’ve had some changes made today about the definition of “stormwater”—

💬 Karen Chhour: Five waters.

—I think we’ve got slightly more clarification around it.

My colleague from ACT is highlighting the very point, saying there’s actually five parts to this bill. It is the “Five Waters Bill”. That, of course, reflects the addition that came in late during the select committee stage, probably driven by—I assume—ministerial intervention; certainly, I don’t think it came through the committee. I don’t recall me putting up a hand or Simon Watts putting up his hand or Anna Lorck putting up a hand or anyone putting up a hand and saying, “Gee, I think we should add geothermal and coastal.” I anticipate it probably came from ministerial input into the drafting process, and hey presto! Suddenly, we’ve got five parts to it.

I think saying there are five parts to it actually reflects the true nature of this bill. I think these last bits, particularly around geothermal—I don’t think if you asked anyone, even in Lambton Quay, let alone going to Eketāhuna and asking them, “Do you think coastal waters—what are they made up of, oh salt water, OK, all right, and geothermal, oh yeah, we drink that a lot and we swim in that a lot. Maybe.” I don’t think anyone ever thought that this bill would include geothermal and coastal waters. But holy presto! Here we are, we’ve got it.

But I actually think what we should do, I think it should be a simpler title. I think we should just call it “The Dribble Bill”, because that’s what it is; it is a piece of dribble, this bill. I think many New Zealanders are going to look back and reflect on this time and say, “Those Ministers and that Labour Government served us poorly.” We will have the opportunity to change it in time, and I hope we do, with my good colleagues—but this bill needs to be changed. It’s going to be a disservice to all New Zealanders, but particularly to New Zealand ratepayers and the 67 councils that have had their assets ripped off them.

I move, That the question be now put.

Has there ever been a bill so misleadingly named? The Water Services Entities Bill, as if nothing is going on here tonight, under urgency, in Parliament. When, in fact, what’s going on is a megamerger of ratepayer-funded assets against the will of those who currently govern those assets, squeezing them into a burgeoning bureaucracy with layers upon layers of new management and a Byzantine governance structure that takes accountability away from the people and divorces democracy from the management of these assets.

And what do they call it? What do the Labour Ministers call it? They call it the Water Services Entities Bill. Well, they should front up and be clear what this is. This is the Three Waters Confiscation Bill. That’s what it is.

What we have here is a piece of legislation that says, “Oh, look, we’ll start doing this at some time.” That’s what the commencement date says. But make no mistake, they’ve put a deadline in, New Zealand. The deadline is July 2024—that’s when they say, come whatever may, if Labour’s in power, they will be forcing your ratepayer assets into these four mega-entities. That’s why this bill cannot stand. That is why National will oppose it and why we will look forward to repealing it.

This is the kind of legislation which I think has Labour taking the New Zealand public for fools, because the arguments we’ve had in recent days, from Ministers and from members, have been that this is somehow necessary because it’s going to save money. What I want to know is: how can that possibly be the case, when what they’re planning to do is create mega-bureaucracy, more and more layers of management, and no actual accountability back to the people who we’re meant to serve?

How can that be the case, when there are ratepayers up and down the country who have paid rates for years and who are happy with the way the water services are being managed right now? And, yes, there are some of them who say, “Look, there should be some more accountability in terms of the way that we have to report on what’s happening; where people aren’t meeting standards, they should have to.” All of that’s good. None of that requires taking all of the entities that exist and shoving them into four mega-merged bureaucracy entities.

It’s not something that New Zealanders support, but it’s something that this Government seems intent on pushing ahead with. The question you have to ask is: if you’ve got New Zealanders up and down the country saying, “We don’t want this; this isn’t the way it should be done.”; if you have submitters from across the country in their tens of thousands saying, “We don’t want this; it shouldn’t be done.”, then why is it that the members opposite are so intent on pressing ahead with it, pressing ahead with it against the will of the people that they are meant to serve, pressing ahead with it against the judgment of many of those who’ve submitted, who’ve called into account the fact that this will not have the accountability mechanisms that democratic entities will have, who’ve said, “Actually, this Byzantine governance structure that you’re proposing may well not lead to the outcomes you are hoping for.”?

So here on this side of the House, we say, “What a misnamed bill.” What a frightening idea that it will ever commence. We will continue to fight against it. Labour can try urgency on us; they can try and do this sort of thing in the sneaky depths of the night, but we, National, will oppose it. And come 2023, we look forward to repealing it.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This bill is misnamed. This bill is called the Water Services Entities Bill, but, as the Parliament has learnt and the country has learnt over the last 48 hours or so, it’s not three waters any more. The Water Services Entities Bill doesn’t affect the three waters. It’s actually the “five waters”, because slipped into this bill by the select committee was the extension of the bill to coastal water and geothermal water, and we are yet to hear a proper explanation from the Government about this.

The Prime Minister was asked about it and could not explain it. She basically said, “Oh, I’m not really sure that’s happening. Oh, it’s all a bit confusing. We must need to clarify that.” That seems to be a common refrain from the Prime Minister when it comes to complex matters at the moment, but we are yet to hear from the Government why the bill is no longer just three waters and why it is now actually “five waters”. Maybe at some point in the public domain—because we’re not going to get a chance in the committee stage any more—we will get an explanation from the Government before we get to the third reading in the next couple of weeks, because this is a very large extension of the powers in the Water Services Entities Bill, and so the bill is misnamed.

We actually do need to have a reference to “five waters” in the bill title, because the Government has sold it as three waters. The unfortunate thing for the Government is that three waters has literally become a synonym around the country for Government incompetence, and anger around rural and provincial New Zealand, in particular, at a Government that they see as overreaching, a Government that they see as unaccountable, and a Government that they see as taking assets off the hands of ratepayers and giving it to these unaccountable mega-entities, and now we discover that it’s not just the three waters; it’s the “five waters”.

The other thing is that we should have “co-governance” mentioned in the bill name, because that is the thing that has riled up New Zealanders. Now, I was at the Infrastructure New Zealand conference today, and Michael Wood, the Minister of Transport, was making the point, referencing Grant Robertson, the Deputy Prime Minister, that if there wasn’t co-governance in this bill, then the Crown would be tied up in court for ever. It is true to say that there are rights and interests for Māori with water. The Crown accepted that at the Supreme Court when it came to the mixed-ownership model case that the previous National Government put forward to sell down stakes in Mighty River Power and Meridian. The Crown accepted that, and that has been the longstanding position of the National Opposition. But it is not true to say that to give effect to rights and interests, that requires 50:50 co-governance.

It does not follow from saying that iwi and mana whenua have rights and interests in water that the necessary corollary is 50:50 co-governance of these entities. It just does not compute, and the thing is that the public have worked it out. The public have worked that out and, unfortunately, there is a middle path through this, but the Government will not compromise on the 50:50 co-governance proposals. There is a middle path through this that the Government could and should adept.

The other thing that should be referenced in the bill title is the extreme extent of its Mana o te Wai statements that these entities are required to give effect to, because as it transpires, only mana whenua can write Te Mana o te Wai statements—only mana whenua. Now, that has quite rightly engendered huge outrage from many people in New Zealand. That’s not to say that mana whenua do not have a legitimate role and a right and an interest in the management of water and water infrastructure, but to say that only a particular group can write Te Mana o te Wai statements, which the bill gives enormous importance to when it comes to these entities—in the National Opposition’s view, that is wrong. It’s not reflected in the bill title, and it should be.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that Simon Watt’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 298 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 306 be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Watts’ amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 303 be agreed to.

Simon Court’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 305 are ruled out of order as being contrary to a previous decision of the committee.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered—[Members interjecting]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Silence.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Water Services Entities Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.