Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on title and commencement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The part of the debate that everyone looks forward to: the title and commencement debate. Now, I have a couple of questions for the Minister around both the title and commencement. I wondered: did the Minister consider changing the title of this Act in clause 1 to the “Central Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act”? The reason I ask that question is because, when we actually have been debating parts of the substantive part of the bill, we’ve actually found that—contrary to what you may think about this bill—there is actually quite a lot of central government involvement.

One of the examples of that is a section we were debating previously where the Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs actually makes up, essentially, the charter for Watercare, meaning that there’s much more central government control over water services than there is in, actually, local government. Actually, in that particular provision there’s just consultation provisions with local government and actually nothing substantive to do with central government.

I also wondered, in relation to the commencement: we have here what is quite a complicated commencement provision. We have a standard, what you would expect in the commencement provision, “the day after Royal assent.” Then we have another part of the bill that comes in on the “recommendation of the Minister.” I wondered why, in fact, it was not possible to have a more certain date. It’s always an objective to have certainty in legislation; it’s important to make sure that it’s clear for the people who this legislation will apply to, which has substantive repercussions for most of New Zealand.

Then we have additional provisions coming on 1 July 2025. Then also a provision that any other provision that’s not come into force—very unspecific. If the Minister could maybe answer in clause 2(3) what this catch-all provision is meant to cover, because it’s not really specific in relation to this commencement provision. Then, lastly, we have a section which looks at the secondary legislation in relation to the commencement.

So I wondered: is there a simpler, better way—according to the Minister—to introduce this piece of legislation, rather than having four different time frames that people who are wanting to utilise this bill will have to look at in order to determine when things come into force? Also my question in relation to the title: does this truly reflect the nature of this bill?

I would like to ask the Minister if the words “preliminary arrangements” should be taken as meaning that there isn’t actually a fuller plan. The reason I say that is summed up very well by Mayor Bryan Cadogan, who has advocated on this in my electorate of Taieri tirelessly, actually, over many months, showing what the burden will be on small councils. Because we know that the preliminary arrangement is around giving councils, council-controlled organisations, or community trusts the ability to borrow around five times their annual operating allowance, which is, effectively, about twice as much as they currently can. But the small councils in particular are up against their debt ceilings.

Bryan Cadogan summed it up by saying that making these arrangements and allowing councils to borrow this much money is a little bit like giving a drowning man a glass of water. Even if councils were to take the longest period which is allowable under the preliminary arrangement of 50 years, the interest payments are going to be absolutely massive. Under this bill, it doesn’t really talk about the long-term plan of who will pay for that. Clearly, for a small council like Clutha, it’s not going to be the residents—there just isn’t the rater base.

Then we’ve been told in the Government’s spin that, “Oh, that’s fine. Councils can amalgamate.” Well, who wants to join with a small council like Clutha?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So can we have some questions about title and commencement, please?

What I’m interrogating is that these are preliminary arrangements, but should the title actually say, “Preliminary Arrangements Bill While we Wait for a Full and Final Plan”? Because, for the small councils—and particularly Waitaki is in a similar situation where it has to decide whether it tries to amalgamate upwards or amalgamate downwards; and the requirements of Taumata Arowai might actually make it even more difficult for these small councils because when they borrow money, they must be able to have a proportionate, cost-effective, and efficient approach to ameliorate that burden.

Now, my question to the Minister is the word “preliminary”, to me, when I read it, shows me that here is a piece of legislation that is a very, very short-term response. It certainly isn’t an adequate response for small councils. Is there going to be a subsequent piece of legislation that is going to, basically, make this redundant? And is that subsequent piece of legislation going to have a real plan for the small councils such as the Clutha District Council in the electorate of Taieri? Or is there no plan? And if there is no plan, perhaps that should be reflected in the title of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back a little bit, and I notice that the Minister in the chair has changed from our Part 5 debate; and I realise, of course, that we are now on the title and commencement and that is what my question is going to be about. Of course, Part 5 changes the Water Services Act 2021, and we heard that that was because of section 14 of that Act, which is “Te Mana o te Wai: meaning, application, effect” and that says, “When exercising or performing a function, power, or duty under this Act, a person must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that Te Mana o te Wai applies to the function, power, or duty.”

My question is whether or not the Minister considered, rather than amending section 138A, I think, of that Act, if it would have been much simpler to amend the section 14 to say that it applies to the functions, powers, or duty, and the hierarchy does not apply to whatever it is that the Government wants to do? So my question is: should not the bill change its name to the “Water Services Strange Te Mana o te Wai Amendment Act”, rather than the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill?

That’s one of my questions. I do think this question about preliminary—it’s a difficult word to say; too many “Rs” in it for me. It’s difficult when your name is Rachel! My colleague makes some good points about that and why it is necessary to be in the title of the bill, and when can we expect more of the changes as well?

We had a previous Minister in a previous part of the bill say that other announcements were made the other week. We’ve heard about those, but we’re not yet sure about the temporal nature of that, so another question is whether a temporal element has been considered for that title of the bill and whether that would be useful. And, of course, that could then relate to the commencement of the bill as well.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to propose an amendment to the title of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. One of the substantial themes that we received in submissions from iwi Māori was a deep concern about the diminishment or removal of Te Mana o te Wai.

The Iwi Chairs Forum is concerned about this reactive, piecemeal, incremental approach to policy development and implementation on issues of such fundamental importance to the health and wellbeing of both our communities and our waterbodies.

Ngā Waihua o Paerangi—Ngāti Rangi—expressed their concern that the undermining of Te Mana o te Wai was one of the primary characteristics that is observed by submitters—and is thus something that is worth mentioning in the title—“Te Mana o Te Wai is a fundamental and hard-fought-for principle developed over many years and supported not only by iwi/hapū but by many other stakeholders, including industry, farmers, councils, and environmental interests. … Te Mana o Te Wai refers to the vital importance of water to all of us. It is not about our ethnicity. It applies to us all equally. It is about managing water sensibly without destroying the integrity of the environment.”

Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust: “While Te Mana o Te Wai is a concept that is derived from Te Aō Maori, its source in mātauranga does not preclude it from having universal application for all New Zealanders in terms of how we use and manage water.”

My proposed amendment is that the bill be called “(Te Mana o Te Wai Deprioritisation)”—that’s something of an extension on the previous speaker, the Hon Rachel Brooking—

💬 Hon Member: “Honourable”.

I did say “the Hon Rachel Brooking”—I did, yes.

💬 Stuart Smith: Give her a double “Honourable”.

I’m sure that will happen in due course—perhaps in a couple of years or even sooner. I want to commend this amendment to the committee, and I look forward to you supporting it. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 72 be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 73 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.