Water Services Legislation Bill

I move, That the Water Services Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

I’m pleased to be here today for a third reading of this bill which will provide the new water services entities with the legislative tools and arrangements they will need to be fully operational when they go live, between 1 July 2024 and 1 July 2026.

I’ll briefly canvas the core components of the bill. The Water Services Legislation Bill provides the implementation arrangements to steer the transition from the existing arrangements for water services delivery to a new model—the new model where these water services will be delivered by 10 regionally-based, publicly-owned entities. The bill enables the entities to make rules, plans, and other instruments relating to water services and engage in compliance and enforcement activities. For example, the bill provides that entities must have stormwater management strategies which include stormwater risk management plans. This will provide a system-based approach to stormwater networks and their regulations. It will also ensure the entities identify risks and hazards, and get ahead of potential problems when they turn into disasters.

The bill provides for mandatory relationship agreements between entities, councils, and other parties to manage critical interfaces such as stormwater, and flooding management, and planning under the Resource Management Act. These relationship agreements will set out how parties will work together and will provide for coordination across interdependent roles.

The bill also establishes charging mechanisms that provide fair, transparent, and affordable charges to households and businesses for their water services. The bill includes detailed mechanisms relating to the transfer of water services assets, liabilities from local government to the new entities, which are in turn owned by communities through their territorial authorities. It provides strong protections to ensure existing treaty settlements continue to be upheld in the new water services delivery system.

The bill provides a pathway for small mixed-use rural supply schemes to be transferred from the entities to the communities, if this is what the community wants and if these schemes meet specified criteria. The bill integrates the water services entities into wider regulatory systems, including the new resource management system.

This is a significant reform and I’m proud of the work that has been done to get here. It follows years of research and analysis using the best of local and international expertise, comparative examples, and extensive consultation with local government, iwi Māori, and the water industry.

The case for change is clear and what we have here is an evidence-based solution. When I think about the numerous benefits this reform will have, these key things come to mind, which I am pleased to have helped deliver for New Zealanders: an affordable, safe, reliable water network, and one that is resilient in the face of extreme weather events; thousands of dollars saved per household by 2054, based on the research that informed the proposals—specifically, households are projected to save up to $2,770 to $5,400 per year by 2054, on average, depending on which region they are in; entities with the increased size required to access more funding to improve management of water services, which is ultimately how we will save Kiwi households cash, and ensure a reliable and resilient network; water related debt removed from councils balance sheets relieving councils of the burden of servicing this debt, and this will of course help limit future rate increases.

The reform is overdue. When we consider that the cost of meeting our country’s water challenges is estimated at between $120 billion and $185 billion over the next 30 years, and we know that this is out of reach of councils to address on their own unless they have unaffordable rates increases for households, it is clear that we are ready for change, and that this is what this bill and these reforms are about.

The journey to reach this point began following the 2016 Havelock North water contamination disaster that led to the loss of four lives and made 5,000 people sick. Some continued to live with the long-term impacts of this illness. However, let’s be clear that the systematic issues that may have contributed to the Havelock North tragedy were evident for many years before then, to those who were aware. In a report issued in 2000 entitled “Ageing pipes and murky waters: Urban water system issues for the 21st Century”, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment found evidence that the current model for delivering these services has now reached the end of its design life.

And that’s the point; this is about the model. It’s about the system, it’s not laying blame. It’s certainly not councils’ fault. They’re doing the best they can with what they’ve got.

Ten years later, in 2010, the previous Government’s Land and Water Forum advised investigation of the potential benefits of rationalisation in the water services sector, and of a more robust regulatory framework. Six years later, in 2016, the Havelock North incident provided a tragic and sharp wake-up call to action. I acknowledge the previous Government’s response, an inquiry which looked not just at the Havelock North contamination incident, but its implications for drinking water services across the country. The Havelock North inquiry clearly identified system-wide issues, including the unacceptable prevalence of waterborne illnesses contracted from publicly owned drinking water services which New Zealanders should be able to trust.

I would again like to acknowledge the previous Government’s courage in initiating a wider Three Waters Review, which looked at issues across all three services around the country: drinking water, waste water and stormwater. The Water Services Legislation Bill I’m speaking to today, and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill represent the final components of a comprehensive policy and legislative response to the matters explored in the Havelock North inquiry and Three Waters Review.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that looked at the evidence available to us six years ago, acting decisively to protect New Zealanders’ health and wellbeing and that of our environment, and ensuring they don’t face unaffordable bills. We have developed and implemented a new regulatory regime for water suppliers with the Water Services Act 2021. We’ve also established a dedicated drinking water regulator, Taumata Arowai.

These changes will protect New Zealanders’ health and the environment and they received near universal support from the sector. But they are a high bar for water service providers and create an additional affordability challenge which councils cannot meet alone. It is not just the safety of drinking water that is the issue. Waste water discharges into lakes, rivers, and harbours have become a regular occurrence. Recent flooding events have further highlighted the criticality of water services for communities, the economy, and our livelihood, and have laid bare the fragility of our critical water infrastructure for some areas.

As I have said, it is estimated that New Zealand needs to invest up to $185 billion in our water services infrastructure over the next 30 years to address decades of underinvestment in our water services infrastructure. The current model for water services delivery simply isn’t up to meeting this challenge, certainly not without huge increases in costs for households, who are at this time facing the same cost of living pressures we are seeing across the world. We currently have 67 territorial authorities delivering water services. These councils often don’t have the finance or scale to make the infrastructure investments necessary. We need a more efficient model with a better access to financing, and that is exactly what this bill delivers.

The 10 new water services entities will have the size and scale to efficiently deliver water services investment and infrastructure and meet the new regulatory standards. They will also have balance sheet separation or financial independence to allow them to borrow to fund the increased investment in water services infrastructure that New Zealand desperately needs.

I’m proud of what our Government has achieved here. The current situation is untenable and we have here a solution that is backed by evidence. We have done what is needed to ensure the long-term wellbeing of New Zealanders. I want to thank all those who have contributed to the preparation and passage of this bill. I particularly want to thank the local government sector. They have engaged throughout this process, and even in cases when individual councils have not supported the reform, they have put that aside to share their technical expertise and knowledge about the communities they serve. This help has been critical and greatly informed many of the provisions in the bill that is presented today, and the previous two bills in this reform.

The passage of this bill is a significant milestone in the journey to provide long-term, affordable, safe, reliable, and resilient water services. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This has been a long and convoluted process to get here to this point where, unfortunately, today, due to the numbers in the House because of the result of the 2020 election, this bill will pass. However, for the record, the National Party categorically opposes this bill today.

I think it’s helpful that we go through the timeline that has brought us here, notwithstanding the events of 2016 in Havelock North; in 2021, when this Government started to make real noises about the dreams and aspirations for water reform in this country; that’s when Nanaia Mahuta announced this four entities model. Ever since that model was announced, there has been nothing but very vocal, strident opposition to this proposal. And particular outrage, I might add, around the provisions of co-governance and the provisions in the make-up of these entities boards that does away with the democratically elected process of the councillors that we, the people, the ratepayers of New Zealand, have elected to represent us.

Let us not forget that back then, this Government tried to entrench some constitutionally dangerous clauses—and they got caught out. They got caught red-handed and they, embarrassingly for them, had to backtrack. It was because of the concerns raised by the National Party that this was made public. This Government had no intention of making that entrenchment clause public. But, in order to try and oil the waters, the Government then went around offering $2.5 billion to councils to get them to opt in to the reform; that then brought us to the Water Services Bill. Then, on 22 June, the water reforms began in earnest with the introduction of the Water Services Entities Bill. That bill alone attracted 88,000 submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—97 percent in opposition.

Again, we have here today a bill that has been passed under urgency, as have the others before it. The night before we were due to debate this bill, the Government dropped a 200-page Supplementary Order Paper to its own piece of legislation. New Zealand has not forgotten the process that has led us here today, and the Government has made changes to its legislation as it’s gone riding roughshod over the democratic process here in New Zealand. This bill, in particular, is to establish and empower the water services entities by establishing their functions, powers, obligations, and oversight arrangements. But unfortunately, this is a missed opportunity. And I have to say to the Minister’s commentary just earlier, I think everybody in this House agrees with the case for change, but it’s how the Government has gone about it is where the agreement begins and ends.

None of the legislation that we have in front of us here today is aimed at reforming the health and the quality of water. It will not improve water quality into the households and families of New Zealand. It is simply taking away the infrastructure that local councils have been administering that has been paid for by local ratepayers. This bill is making several expansions to an already highly criticised process. The Water Services Legislation Bill is even more complicated than the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, which also—I might add—passed under urgency. There are three key things in this legislation that the Government didn’t want to talk about, and I want to take a moment to go through those. Those, primarily, are that Kiwis will be paying for their water. We don’t know by how much—the Minister was asked about that in the committee of the whole House and he said it’s up to the entities to decide. That is unforgivable. That level of unassurance to the ratepayers of New Zealand is unforgivable. So too, does this piece of legislation impose a fine and punitive regime, a punishment regime—fines for non-compliance with the rules that the entities will set up.

So, in essence, through the passage of this bill, the Government is taking away assets and then it’s forcing Kiwis to pay for the reforms. The Minister spoke quite at length about how, in his view, this is going to remove the liability of debt from councils. But he didn’t mention it’s also removing the assets from councils. He talked about financial independence and separation of balance sheets that these new entities would bring. But what he didn’t talk about is that that could have been a provision provided to councils. That’s where the National Party and the Government differ greatly: we would actually empower councils, those that needed it, with the financial independence that they needed.

The designs of these bills do not provide enough protection for smaller councils with low rate bases. And I’ve used the example time and time again of Entity I which merges the Canterbury councils and the West Coast councils. Most of the Canterbury councils, I would argue, have very strong balance sheets, have new modern assets and infrastructure; West Coast councils do not. There is a fundamental discrepancy there whereby some councils, some ratepayers, are having to subsidise others. I don’t think either side of the ledger would agree that that is fair.

There is no flexibility in the pricing. Again, as I mentioned, we asked the Minister to outline details on pricing. Those details are unavailable. We asked the Minister what liability the Crown would have around compensation for the likes of land that is needed in catchment areas. There are no details available. But I think it’s the penalty regime that will shock New Zealanders the most, and we talked a little bit about it last night in the second reading. There is an extensive enforcement provision laid out within this bill. It includes a fine of $20,000 for breaking a sprinkler ban. Now, we often have hot, dry summers in Canterbury and most gardeners will get their sprinklers out in the evenings. But $20,000 for breaking a sprinkler ban—when you put it in the context that the penalty for most petty thefts in New Zealand is $1,000, it really does, I think, highlight the fact that this Government has its priorities way out of whack.

At the heart of our opposition to the majority of these bills that have passed is the issue of democracy and the lack of transparency. As I said earlier, one of the bills alone attracted 88,000 submissions—97 percent in opposition. This one, to be fair, did go through a proper select committee process. They did get 1,900-odd submissions, but they only heard less than 2 percent of them. That is not allowing the voice of New Zealand to have an input on shaping this legislation. And, as we’ve all observed, yet again we’re in urgency. The committee of the whole House process has been truncated because we’re in urgency. There is still overwhelming opposition to these bills—that makes it undemocratic.

We have said on this side of the House multiple times that we support the case for change, but we do not believe that this is the solution to it. The National Party has fully intended to overturn this bill if we’re in Government in October. We will do it as soon as practicably possible. We will replace it with what we call “Local water done well”, with our fundamental principle that we return those assets back to local councils, to the ownership and management of local councils. And yes, where there is a need for some small councils to be supported to maintain their assets, there are provisions to enable that to happen. We oppose this bill in its entirety.

New Zealand’s water infrastructure in many places is quite frankly stuffed. This is about broken pipes and waterways, and the National Party may want to repeal these reforms but they don’t have a credible plan to replace it with.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee did a really thorough process on this bill. The main areas that I really valued were the changes around stormwater, making sure there’s accountability for the maintenance of waterways; also the mandatory relationship agreements where a lot of the devil in the detail lies; the changes to rural water supplies, which shows that we listen to rural communities; and also the care taken to ensure access and affordability for all New Zealanders. It’s a really great bill. I commend it to the House.

Oh wow, what a great bill—51 seconds that contribution was. I’m not surprised, because the reality is that if I was a backbencher in the Labour Government at the moment, I’d be reluctant to get up and put my name to this bill as well, because they know that they’re going to be punished in a few weeks on 14 October for legislation exactly like this. It shows that they think they know best—Labour knows best.

Remember the old days when three waters was about water quality and standards? That didn’t go too well, did it, because they got caught out with their false advertising with green sludge coming out of the tap. So much for a Government that stood up for misinformation and disinformation! They are the “Government of Misinformation”.

But, of course, then they pivoted because “Three waters is about a cost of living crisis.”, they called, and only their solution would address the cost of living crisis. Interestingly enough, they had been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the cost of living crisis debate after refusing to acknowledge the pain on many New Zealanders when they got their wallets out. Now, when you listen to the Minister when he talks about three waters, it’s about responding to weather events—that’s the latest. It’s gone from water quality to cost of living and now to responding to weather events.

In fact, the reality is that three waters was always a solution looking for a problem, because there’s only one play in this Government’s playbook, and that’s centralisation. Anything they do, they’ll centralise it. Look at the health reforms, look at the polytech reforms, and now look at three waters, because, of course, in their minds, under this failed socialist experiment that will get them kicked out in a few weeks—under socialism—you’ve centralised because Wellington knows best, the beltway knows best. But, of course, on this side of the House, we know that local knows best. That’s why we will repeal and replace the three waters legislation in the first 100 days of a National-ACT Government, because we know that this will not work.

Today’s bill is the fourth three waters bill that this Government have brought in under urgency, and that says it all. Every three waters bill they’ve brought into this House has been under urgency. They’ve rushed it through because they know it’s gone down like a cup of cold sick out there in New Zealand.

In my electorate of Waimakariri, 95 percent of ratepayers opposed three waters, and, of course, that was in the day when they said to the councils, “You can opt out.” So Waimakariri District Council went to their ratepayers because the Labour Government told them that if they went and got the consensus from their ratepayers, they could opt out, and 95 percent of ratepayers said no. But Official Information Act request documents revealed it was a legislated all-in, even with the consultation. So this bill does not come to the House in good faith; it comes in bad blood. Again, they’ve misled the public of New Zealand.

Here we have a bill that will enable and empower these big mega-entities, because, of course, they actually only wanted four of them. But they had to do the flip-flop and the back-down bill to bring it up to 10, because Kieran McAnulty, the Minister who went round all the councils—and they all said, “Mr McAnulty: nice guy, wrong party.”—but he knew the backlash. See, Mr McAnulty is a smart guy. He listens to the people on the ground because he knows he needs to listen because his seat will go if he doesn’t.

He came back to Wellington and his senior Cabinet Ministers said, “Don’t worry about listening to the public. They don’t know what’s best. We know what’s best.” But, of course, he got them to get to the 10 mega-entities, and now this legislation is passing—the detailed legislation to enable those 10 mega-entities—and, basically, these 10 mega-entities will seize and will steal ratepayer-owned water assets.

State theft by stealth, this bill is. It is taking away the hard-earned money from all those ratepayers who’ve paid into their water assets. They are intergenerational water assets, and now, under this bill, those water assets will be taken into these big water entities. All their personal ratepayer information will be forced out of the councils now and into these water entities, and then, in return, the charges will come down.

What we do know is that unlike councils, who know their local communities and who would be able to be nimble and adapt with water charging based on the level of investment and based on the capacity of the council to respond, these water entities will be a blunt instrument across New Zealand. What will happen for those councils that have diligently invested in good water assets and in good water-quality standards? Their money will be cross-subsidising other areas, and, in return, they will lose ownership of those assets. They will not be accountable to them.

There is no return here for the average ratepayer, and that is why National has said very clearly that we will repeal and replace the three waters legislation. I want to give a shout-out to my colleague Simon Watts, who in a few weeks, hopefully, will be the Minister of Local Government. He will restore faith back into councils that, once again, they will be listened to and they will be supported. They won’t be dictated to like they have been under this arrogant Labour Government, which is going to be voted out after only two terms because they’re tired. They’re tired, they’ve run out of ideas, and, quite frankly, when you look at the polls, people have just had enough of being told by this Labour Government what to do.

See, on this side of the House, we want to listen to people locally. We want to support them. We want to empower them. We won’t want to have top-down directives that tell them what to do.

So I’m not surprised that every Labour MP that has got up, time after time, has spoken very briefly, because they won’t take many calls—you watch for the next hour or two. They’ll low-ball it. They’ll hope the voters won’t clip it out on their social media as to why they think that this is a good idea.

The reality is that we’ve gone through quite a legislative process with this bill and the other three three waters bills. Clearly, the public hasn’t been listened to. As my colleague Nicola Grigg has said in her contribution—which I thought was a fantastic contribution that led off for the Opposition this morning—there were tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of submitters that weren’t listened to, because all we are doing here is setting up mega-bureaucratic entities, and you only need to look at the abject failure of the health reforms to see that in setting up these entities, it will not work. Look at the failure of the polytech reforms—it will not work.

But this Government is tone deaf, ploughing on in the view that centralisation is the solution to every issue in New Zealand. In conclusion, I just want to say that National opposes this bill.

Well, what a diatribe that was. The member for Waimakariri thinks he can slide in here like Steve Parr on Sale of the Century, promising people the money—promising the people of Waimakariri the money—whereas in reality, all they’re going to get is the bag: the bag full of broken promises. One thing the member for Waimakariri did not mention was the people of Oxford and the boil-water notice that exists for them, with their water being offline for six weeks until it’s up to a potable standard.

That’s why this bill is overdue. It provides new water services entities and legislative tools and arrangements, and they will need to be in place so that they’re fully operational by 1 July 2024 and 1 July 2026. So it’s a fantastic bill, and I commend it to the House.

ACT agrees there’s a problem with three waters infrastructure and the way it’s delivered and the way it’s maintained. The way three waters has been delivered has actually held up the affordability of land for housing, and it’s also led to sewage overflows and all kinds of disgusting things on the beaches around our major metros. So there’s a problem to be solved, and that problem is: how do we resolve the funding and financing? How do we provide proper oversight and accountability for organisations managing assets on behalf of the public? How do we provide for water services so we can provide more serviced land at an affordable rate?

There’s the problem. ACT engaged constructively throughout the three waters reform process, going back to 2020. We talked to farmers and growers; we heard their concerns. We heard from councils who were opposed to the reforms as proposed by this Government, Communities 4 Local Democracy, and other councils. We spoke to people in the local government financing area who described the issues with lending to councils and the fact that many of them do not have adequate revenue collection processes to actually allow them to borrow more. Most of them don’t even have water meters, so they can’t justify taking water service charges from residential and commercial customers. Imagine that: not being able to bill your customers for the services or the products that they use—only in New Zealand. That’s one of the problems that ACT would propose to solve.

But what does Government do? They’ve adopted a centralisation agenda. It’s not just three waters. It’’s resource management reform, centralising planning in unelected co-governed planning bodies. It’s Te Pūkenga, trying to get all of the polytechnics, like the one I studied at—Unitec in Auckland—to come under one umbrella, as if a Government department could work out exactly what delivering education services in each community should look like.

Then we come to the confiscation of assets. Now, this is the Labour Party that’s made a big deal about returning stolen land and stolen assets through Treaty settlements. But here it brings a bill to the House proposing to steal and confiscate assets—expropriating assets without compensation from local government.

Then they lied to councils: “It’s voluntary, not compulsory.” Well, it turned out it is compulsory. Then they lied to councils again: “Don’t worry; you’ll be no worse off. There’s $1.5 billion in a fund to make sure councils are no worse off.”

Helen White: Point of order. I think that the reference to lying in the House and accusing people of lying to councils is inappropriate and against our rules.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): It is unparliamentary. The member will withdraw and apologise if the member wants to continue on his speech.

SIMON COURT: I withdraw and apologise, however, ACT would certainly contend that—

Hon David Bennett: Point of order. The member didn’t actually accuse anyone of lying, so I don’’t know who he has to withdraw and apologise to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take a seat. I am in the Chair and I have already dealt with that point of order.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Bennett, for leaping to the defence of the ACT Party. Let’s be clear. Labour promised councils they wouldn’t confiscate the assets, then they confiscated them, so, Helen White, I’m not sure how you describe that. Reach to your dictionary or thesaurus. You promised something and then we did something completely different. Labour said they would make sure councils are no worse off, with $1.5 billion to make sure that councils were no worse off financially, then they pulled the money out from under them, and said, “We’re not giving you that money.” I don’t know what we’d look to in the Oxford dictionary, Helen White. What is the particular word that we would seek to use?

Helen White: Point of order. This is a little contemptuous of a ruling that’s been made, and all such rulings need to be respected in this House, and so does your role, ma’am.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will stay away from continuing down this line. If he wants to finish his speech within the next 5 minutes and 56 seconds, stay away from that line in your debate.

SIMON COURT: Speaking to the point of order, it is a debatable matter whether a policy—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Accusing a party of lying is not a debatable matter.

SIMON COURT: I have not. I have simply pointed out the facts: what was announced and then what was delivered. They are different.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will now continue his speech, but make your points in a different way.

SIMON COURT: Raising a further point of order, I’d like your advice as to whether it’s appropriate to interrupt a member on debatable matters simply to make a point, because I believe that that actually risks causing further disorder.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This is a robust debate. The member is now at risk of disrespecting me as the Speaker. Continue your speech, but stay away from accusing other parties of lying.

SIMON COURT: Well, then, I’m not quite sure where to go to, because the three waters reforms have been a litany of broken promises. So let me reach to my thesaurus. What could we say instead of using that word? Well, co-governance, as proposed by this Government as a solution to apparently resolve Māori rights and interests in fresh water actually, according, to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the former Minister—she admitted that there are no rights and interests in three waters assets built after 1840. So the entire premise for introducing co-governance—50:50, unelected, undemocratically appointed iwi tribal elites on to co-governance entity boards; there’s no justification for it. Even the former Minister Nanaia Mahuta agreed. The ACT Party would say, drawing from our thesaurus, that that is gaslighting nonsense.

Then we come to funding and financing. Well, the Minister today, Kieran McAnulty, responsible for this bill, tried to claim that even though the bill extinguishes the rights of water entities to undertake partnerships, that joint ventures and council-controlled organisations would allow partnerships to continue.

Well, you only have to read the bill; refer to the Partnership Law 2019 Act. It says very, very clearly that those types of partnerships are public-private partnerships (PPPs), which allow PPPs or their shareholders to make a profit, and won’t be allowed by this bill. I don’t know what to call it, but it sounds to me like the Minister said one thing but the bill says another.

Then we come to the technical issues. How is it that having been told by submitters all the technical challenges of taking water services assets off councils—who are responsible for land use planning and development consenting—taking the water assets off them, which they should be planning to deliver in order to deliver more serviced land, and then adding a stormwater component, taking the stormwater component off local councils and handing that to the entities—it creates all kinds of implementation risks and issues. Well, instead of resolving them through the bill, as difficult as it could be, the Minister and the Labour Government have simply kicked it down the road to these things called “relationship agreements” that water service entities will have to enter into with transport agencies, with councils, with those running parks and reserves, for example—kicking it down the road.

This bill does not resolve the fundamental problem: how do you deliver more serviced land to enable housing growth so that young Kiwis or people moving to a new town can get a home at an affordable price so that they can choose where they live and they’re not stopped from doing that or unreasonably held up from doing that because of the cost of housing? All of this water infrastructure is only to do one thing: it’s to enable serviced land for housing and business growth. That is all it is for. There is an economic and social benefit to it. If this bill doesn’t solve that problem, what’s the point? It will go in the bin. That’s why ACT will repeal it.

So what is the alternative? Well, the alternatives have been canvassed as we worked through the bill. How could we deliver new infrastructure to provide for housing growth? How could we maintain assets in an acceptable way so that we don’t have waste-water overflows onto beaches or into rivers? What we could do is allow for voluntary shared services agreements between councils. It’s already working very, very well between Auckland’s Watercare council-controlled organisation and the Waikato District Council. It’s working so well that the Waikato District Council asked the Finance and Expenditure Committee to please let them join the Auckland and Northland water service entity, because they’ve already got a relationship. But no, this Government has its own way of doing things. They’re not going to listen to what’s practical and what works. ACT would.

Then we think about how we fund and finance all of this work, whether it’s $120 billion or $180 billion. Well, what ACT says is that central government should share half the GST back that’s collected on new builds every year, because the Government takes about $2.5 billion in GST on new housing construction activities, keeps it all for itself, and wastes it on goodness knows what. Instead, ACT would say return half of that $1.2 billion to councils around New Zealand. For Auckland it would be around $400 million a year. That would cash flow the borrowing needed to improve the assets, because if you can leverage $400 million into $1.6 million or $2 million with the kind of leveraging that this bill proposes that water service entities will get, then we can do it already—we can do it already. We would also expand the exemption for domestic water suppliers to 30 end users so that rural and small water users are not captured by this enormous regulatory red tape and cost.

ACT’s plan would deliver serviced land for housing in an affordable way, not so that new owners are faced with an $85,000 development contribution cost, like those proposing to live and work in Drury south. ACT’s plan would give confidence to business that they can access water at an affordable price, invest in their operations, and invest in their people. ACT’s plan is a recipe for a much better water outcome. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, thank you. The Green Party’s position on the programme of change in the water services era is a nuanced one. We supported the Minister’s amendment to this bill, because it does improve the bill and it better integrates the changes that are happening in water services with what is happening with the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the big Resource Management Act reform. We have opposed this bill because we are still fundamentally concerned about the scale of corporatisation that it involved. We supported the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, because it increased the number of entities from four to 10, so that it had that better connection with local communities that so many submitters and so many councils called for.

But the scale of corporatisation here—I’m surprised that the National Party is proposing to repeal the bill, because these corporate entities are exactly the sort of entity that National normally supports, and would have no hesitation about seeking to privatise or partially privatise if—in the unlikely event—it became the Government. So we sought, in earlier bills to have an entrenchment provision, and I rebut what Nicola Grigg said; that was responding to the substantial public concern about water assets needing to remain in public ownership. It was flagged during our alternative view in the select committee report; it was well flagged, it was not done in secret. It’s unfortunate that that was walked back, but we accept that that was the decision of the Parliament. The costs involved in this programme of work are substantial. They have been premised on the principle of balance sheet separation so that there is no association with the councils and the ability of councils to really influence the decisions that the water services entities take on the $150 million to $180 million investment that seems to be needed. And the composition of the regional representative groups with strong representation for mana whenua is part of that distancing from the councils and distancing from the decision makers.

This balance sheet separation has been fundamental to the legislation, but it is something that the Greens dispute. We don’t think that other options were adequately looked at. The Watercare model is performing well in Auckland, with two waters. In Christchurch, I have the benefit of getting clean water from the services delivered very effectively by the Christchurch City Council. Larger councils are quite competent and can do this. Other options, like having the Crown back councils or council-controlled organisations to do more investment—as we’ve seen in Scotland, where the Crown there does back the investment and infrastructure of the Water Commission in Scotland. Those models weren’t adequately explored. The Department of Internal Affairs and its consultants have done a huge amount of work, so the changes have become a bit like a steamroller: they have kept on going. There have been promises made that it will prevent rates blowing out—what will happen if that doesn’t happen? The cost of actually then continuing to implement the reforms, particularly in the storm water space, is something that the Green Party is really concerned with. We want to see a much greater investment in nature-based solutions and we’re concerned that, as more extreme weather events cause more rainfall, more risk of flooding—that engineer-dominated entities will fall back on traditional solutions of pipes, because generally, in the short term, they are cheaper, but not in the long term.

We want to see strong Government policy to ensure that we get a movement towards spongy cities, because those investments in spongy cities—in green space—improve city amenity and are cheaper in the long term, and they’re good for our mental health and wellbeing. This is a major change. It will be some time before all of the benefits that have been promoted—whether or not they actually occur. Auckland Council was said to be more efficient at the big unitary model; the costs involved haven’t necessarily borne that out. But the major reason we are opposing this is because it separates stormwater from councils and the key role that councils have in place-making their control over the levers and the planning tools, and the fact that the entities might have relationship agreements and have to work those out with councils and with the managers of roading corridors. All of this creates quite significant transaction cost.

And I think there is a big issue as well—not only the transaction costs, but the increased debt that the balance sheet separation will enable, and we will go on to debate the next bill in terms of consumer protection and efficiency. The scrutiny that the Commerce Commission provides over the levels of debt that the water services entities incur is absolutely critical so that we avoid making those mistakes that have happened with the big private entities in the United Kingdom, and those becoming virtually bankrupt because of the level of debt that they have incurred. Bigger entities tend to go for bigger infrastructure solutions when smaller ones can be just as effective. We need to ensure that there is a diversity of options, particularly in the stormwater space—and not just ones that rely on big pipes. So we’re not supporting this bill; we think that other options should have been investigated more and that this has become a bit of a steamroller.

Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take just a short call on the Water Services Legislation Bill. I’’ll start by saying I understand why the National Party and the Opposition oppose this bill, and that is because this bill looks after all New Zealanders, not just a certain rich few. Currently, we know that what is happening to our pipes needs cleaning up. We know that the status quo cannot continue, and if it does, only the certain rich few will be able to afford clean drinking water.

But you know what? On this side of the House, the Labour Government are here for all New Zealanders, not just the few, and so on this side of the House we believe to make sure that all New Zealanders can expect to have clean drinking water—that’s right, all New Zealanders. We also believe on this side of the House that with the drains, they shouldn’t be so rundown that they are flooding people’s properties. We want to look after all New Zealanders and make sure that we clean all the pipes up, and that is why this is a good piece of legislation. That is what this Labour Government’s doing, supporting all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call on the Hon David Bennett for 5 minutes.

Well, we’re going to look after all New Zealanders, solve all things for everybody, all at once, all without any costs and all without any implications and all because we’re so perfect and aren’t we lovely? And shouldn’t we all believe in the all-powerful Government of the day?

Well, that’s the Labour rhetoric that those members of Parliament have been told, caucus after caucus, by their senior leaders: “Don’t worry about the economy. Don’t worry about your seats. Don’t worry about any of that. It’s going to come right. The economy is going to come right.” Do not listen to Grant Robertson. He’s been feeding you that line all year. It’s time to wake up.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member will come back to this particular bill. It’s not a general debate.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, this bill is for all New Zealanders at all times and to be all-conquering. That’s what the Labour Party is saying, and it is a dream. They are falsifying the future for themselves and they have got reality coming in a few months’ time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member will come back to this bill. He’s spoken for a minute—not actually about this bill. Come back to the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK. If we—

Erica Stanford: Terisa Ngobi didn’t talk about the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Ha, ha! Yeah. Yes, but if we look at the bill, it is classic Labour Party policy. It is centralisation. It is taking from communities that have actually invested in those assets over time, putting it into one pot and saying that it’s going to solve all the issues that the country faces. That’s the Labour Party’s plan.

The reality is, first of all, you’re taking from councils that have made good investments. Secondly, they can’t answer the question about how much it will actually cost to do up the really big things. How much will it cost to do up the stormwater in Auckland? They can’t answer that. They refuse to answer that, because they know it’s well in advance of any money that will come from putting all the rural communities that have done well with their water schemes together to pay for those big urban costs.

Shanan Halbert: Which ones?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Which ones? You ask, and OK, we’ll go through all of the ones that submitted, and many of them are—South Canterbury: in that area, many of those submitted that they had a perfect scheme. Whangārei was a great example. That member’s from Auckland, he’s in the Greater Auckland water scheme now, and Whangārei came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and said, “Our water scheme is really good. We’ve invested heavily. We don’t need to now cross-subsidise Auckland’s under-investment.” That is what Whangārei said, and Whangārei is the council that came in front and did that. So when that member asks what councils submitted and what did they say, well, that’s what they said.

They all said, also, that the Minister came and saw them. He did this glorious tour, you know, around the country and was listening to all their views. But then the legislation was completely the opposite—completely the opposite. Never took any of their views into account. It was false. It was just an attempt to placate those communities. That’s what they were doing.

This is a symbol of the failures of this Labour Government. It shows all the hallmarks of everything they’ve failed at. It’s late, it’s centralised, it doesn’t work, it’s unfunded, and it’s got no actual direction to it. It is just a wish list on a piece of paper. That’s all it is, and that’s all they’ve got because they don’t know how to do anything. They haven’t delivered one thing in Government apart from destroying the New Zealand economy, and that is the only thing that this Labour government will be known for.

This bill is really just an example of what a failure they’ve been. It’s a disaster for water services in New Zealand. It’s never going to see the light of day. It’s going to be reversed in a couple of months’ time. It’s a complete sham, waste of time—whatever you want to call it. At the same time, any real issues in the water scenes of New Zealand haven’t been dealt with by this Government when they should have been dealt with. So there’s no way we’re going to support it.

I just want to take a short call and respond to some of the contrasts we’re seeing between the two major parties here. I listened to Matt Doocey talk about the Waimakariri, and then I googled the Waimakariri. It’s a river that is called “cold, rushing water” in Māori—that’s the translation. But immediately I came across a spot called Thompsons on that river and people can’t swim there anymore. My friend in the House gave me pictures which I was looking at of dark water coming out of pipes, quite close by, as I understand it. There are water notices in that region. This is not, as Matt Doocey characterised it, something looking for a problem, etc.; this was a problem. This is a problem for New Zealand. We need to fix the water supplies and the processes in this country, and Labour is the only party that’s going to do that.

Madam Speaker, I once said that water is probably the most unsexy topic we can talk about here in this House, but this is something that we can no longer ignore when we have people who are dying because of polluted waters, when we have people on boil-water notices there is something we need to do about it.

I sat here and listened to lots and lots of speeches from the other side of the House. Labour has promised this week to teach financial literacy to students; I do think the National Party needs to listen to that as well. The whole point of having balance sheet separation is so that we can increase either the debt or the investment that we put into our water infrastructure. Making sure that if local councils hit their debt ceilings, the only way of collecting more rates is not the way that they’re limited to investing and providing good infrastructure for the rest of New Zealand. Making sure that we can give the basic human right of access to clean, healthy water to New Zealanders is a fundamental job that the Government will have to do, so that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a good example of why we do need financial literacy training, I suppose, but a little bit irrelevant to the actual bill, because what we’ve got here is a terrible piece of legislation. The Government are doing anything they can to distract from this horrible piece of unworkable legislation that will not deliver improved outcomes for New Zealanders. Sadly, we’ve seen, time and again, a Government that will introduce a piece of legislation, take every opportunity to make it longer and more burdensome than it needs to be, and ultimately end up delivering more cost and less benefit for New Zealanders, and this is a clear example of that. It is centralising the water systems.

Actually, I haven’t heard the other members talk about three waters. That was the name that was given early on in the piece, and I do just want to mention that, because it is about the three waters, and what we’ve seen consistently is strong opposition to the proposals that have been put forward. This Government, despite all of that, have decided that they still know best; they will centralise it all and take over yet another area. Like we’’ve seen with the health sector, like we’ve seen with the polytechnics, centralisation seems to be the only solution this Government has. It’s a typical arrogant approach that you see does not deliver better outcomes for Kiwis, and Kiwis are getting tired of this. They are sick and tired of a Government that does not listen to their voices, does not hear what they have to say, and, ultimately, impacts their lives and their ability to get on and succeed.

Fortunately, we will repeal and replace this terrible piece of legislation. If we’re fortunate enough to be in on 14 October, it’ll be gone by Christmas. Finally the public will have the opportunity to have confidence again, to have some clarity, to understand that things will be better.

Hon Scott Simpson: Hope is on the way.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The horizon looks good, and hope is on the way, Mr Simpson—absolutely.

So, look, we don’t need to continue speaking on this piece of legislation. It is terrible, but it has taken up too much of this House’s time. As I said, it won’t be in place for too long—we’ll be getting rid of it by Christmas—but, frankly, it just epitomises this Government’s inability to deliver better outcomes, as you’ve seen time and time again, legislation after legislation coming through and not improving New Zealanders’ lives. National will get New Zealand back on track, and it is only a few short weeks to wait. So we wholeheartedly oppose this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to stand and take a short call on this piece of legislation, the Water Services Legislation Bill, which we have heard the rationale for. Four people died in Havelock North from contaminated water, from campylobacter poisoning that was completely predictable and preventable. Many thousands of people were made sick and many still live with the impact on their lives and will do for the rest of their lives.

This is wholly unacceptable in New Zealand today. The National Party, though? Perfectly fine by them. A boil-water notice is currently in place in Oxford. We’ve heard about how fantastic things are in Waimakariri—they’re not. There’s a boil-water notice in place currently, as we speak, in Waimakariri.

I support this legislation. It will save the ratepayers in Christchurch City $2,680 at a minimum, and in Canterbury $4,780. Thank you.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.