Water Services Entities Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I present a legislative statement on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I move, That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill will implement the decisions made by this Government to refocus its reform of water services. Everyone on this side of the room understands our water infrastructure deficit needs to be addressed now. The cost of meeting the upgrades that our water infrastructure is projected to cost is up to $185 billion over the next 30 years. That level of required investment is outside the reach of most individual councils. They can’t do it by themselves. If we do nothing, it means households face increased water costs and ratepayers will be faced with an unaffordable cost burden.

Throughout this process, we have not changed our bottom lines. These include public ownership of water services entities, balance sheet separation on operational and financial independence to allow the entities to make much needed investment, joint oversight of the entities by their local authority owners and mana whenua, and strong regulation of the water services entities to ensure fair prices for consumers and quality of services.

Councils across New Zealand accepted the need for change on how we run our water services. There was feedback about how the reforms could be refocused, particularly around localism. This Government has listened to these concerns and will implement new arrangements for 10 water services entities, changes to their boundaries, and ensuring that every council has a seat on its entity’s regional representative group.

New Zealanders can agree on the basics for water in this country. However, these basics have not been met under the status quo. Proper investment in water infrastructure will also result in long-term significant cost savings for households compared to the status quo model.

The recent extreme weather events we have witnessed have demonstrated how vulnerable our water infrastructure is. As the climate continues to change, more communities and assets are at risk. The window to taking action to avoid the worst impacts of climate change is closing fast. Long-term thinking is needed to set a strategic and integrated approach for water services, and I believe this reform achieves that.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who made a submission on this bill, particularly local government and iwi, who have been engaged throughout the course of water services reform. I do want to acknowledge that it was a short select committee process with a limited time for submissions. However, this Government has been clear that it will implement its reforms before this Parliament rises. Alongside this, legislative certainty around the reform programme is needed for water sector planning and employment, and to provide clarity for ongoing transition and implementation activities.

I would also like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee, which considered the submissions and made more than 60 amendments to enhance the bill’s workability. Let’s look at some of the key changes.

Many councils were concerned that the legislation did not provide clarity around entity establishment dates. They submitted that greater certainty about go-live dates for the entities was crucial to enabling them to meet their planning obligations and providing assurance to affected staff. The committee has recommended that the entity establishment dates be set by Order in Council within six months of the enactment of this bill. This would allow a period of consultation with territorial authorities and mana whenua before setting establishment dates before, at latest, the first quarter of 2024. The process of determining when entities should go live will require the input and perspectives of many, including the councils, mana whenua, and the National Transition Unit. Ultimately, entities will be established when territorial authorities and mana whenua are ready, to ensure the best outcomes for their communities.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge staff working in the water sector. I understand that this is a time of uncertainty. The committee heard from councils and union representatives on this area and in response made several key changes to staff transfer provisions. The bill now enables collective bargaining to occur with a designated representative prior to the establishment of all entities. This will enable unions to have input on the collective employment arrangements that will apply across all water services entities. This is a significant step forward for employees.

The bill also ensures that retention payments are to be paid to employees who transfer from their council to a water services entity. This will help councils by encouraging staff to stay employed with them until their role is transferred. It will also incentivise staff to stay in the water sector. We acknowledge that skilled staff are key to delivering ongoing mahi and driving innovation. Retaining water services staff in Aotearoa is critical to the success of the reforms.

There were also changes to make sure the small group of Watercare staff based within the Waikato water services entity boundary will have employment continuity when the Northland and Auckland entity goes live. While initially being transferred to the Northland and Auckland entity, they will be offered a position in the Waikato entity when it’s established.

Some submitters sought clarity about the purpose of community priority statements. The committee recognised that these are an important mechanism for ensuring local voices and perspectives are heard, but considered the bill was unclear on who is eligible to submit a community priority statement. Incorporating a definition of “eligible person” will ensure individuals or organisations making statements have a clear connection to the entity service area and their organisational purpose relates to a water body.

The bill contains provisions that allow locally led volunteer merger of water services entities to occur if the communities served by their entities want this to happen. The committee heard concerns from some councils about the 50 percent threshold for a merger where it was initiated by a Crown intervention body appointed to a water services entity because of significant financial stress, irreparable governance difficulties, or inability to deliver minimum levels of service to consumers. The committee has agreed that all merger proposals must have 75 percent agreement. This aligns with other voting and decision-making thresholds across the water services legislation. The committee also agreed to include a comprehensive list of factors that must be considered when a decision on a merger is made by an entity’s regional representative group. This is to safeguard good decision making around a merger and will help ensure consensus before a decision is made.

Some submitters raised concerns about the ministerial powers to direct entities to share services together as being too broad. In response to this, the committee tightened the purpose for which the Minister can direct entities to share services. Ministerial directions must now be consistent with the operating principles of an entity and consider input or feedback back from stakeholders relating to the proposed direction. Directions that are made after the establishment period cannot direct the entities on how they should implement the direction.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of the committee, committee staff, and Parliamentary Counsel Office on this bill. They have worked tirelessly in a short time frame to improve the resilience and efficiency of New Zealand water services infrastructure. I consider the proposed amendments will help strengthen the legislation governing the delivery of our water services and ensure it is workable for water services entities and communities.

This bill shows how we have listened to concerns of New Zealanders and it will make sure we can all enjoy safe, reliable, and affordable water services. This is a reform that will benefit our communities, our children, and our children’s children for generations to come. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish I could say it was a pleasure to be standing here talking on the second reading of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, but with nine days left of this Parliament sitting in the 53rd Parliament, this Government is bringing the third of a trilogy of bills that are destined to make our water infrastructure and our water industry and water provision in this country worse, not better, for Kiwis across this country. That is a great shame, because the opportunity has on many, many occasions, in regards to this legislation, been there for the taking.

The opportunity to listen to New Zealanders across this country, to take on board their feedback and their ideas on how to solve a problem which all people in this House agree exists—but that opportunity to listen to Kiwis has not been taken up. A select number of individuals have had the ability to contribute to this legislation, and as a result it does not reflect the views of all New Zealanders and that is a great shame.

The process in which this bill has gone through—and I do want to acknowledge the work of the Governance and Administration Committee, the select committee under the auspicious chair of Ian McKelvie, who led what was a hugely challenging process. Thirty-four days was how many days that committee was given, in a truncated process, in order to consider this bill—34 days. The standard in this House, as a baseline, is six months—six months is the baseline standard for any bill. Why? To ensure the voices of New Zealanders in our democracy can be fairly heard in regards to the changes of legislation that go through this House.

Thirty-four days is a travesty in regards to the way in which our democracy works, and is an insult to New Zealanders in regards to complex and comprehensive legislation that affects an asset and a commodity which is fundamental to all of our lives—water. That is disappointing; 1,997 people or individuals or organisations made submissions—nearly 2,000 people. Don’t forget the last bill before this, leading up, had 86,000 submissions—that is a huge number—but the select committee heard 58 of those submissions, and of the 58, 28 individual submissions were heard—around 1.4 percent of that 1,997.

We heard in those submissions that many of those individuals were people that were not listened to or had the opportunity to contribute at other stages of this bill. That’s what they told us. They said their voices were not able to be heard—they were not able to participate in our democracy—and that is after the Minister, in his first reading speech in relation to this bill, said that “this bill represents important changes”. The Minister articulated clearly and recognised and acknowledged the pressure which councils across this country are under, but only gave those councils 34 days to be able to prepare submissions, make submissions, and make consideration.

Well, I tell you what: that’s pretty hypocritical, isn’t it? Because on one hand, and you heard it this morning in terms of the opening address around this bill, how hard it is for councils around this country, how difficult it is. We know that; we’ve had natural disasters of massive and significant scale. Our councils, our volunteers, our communities have been absolutely hammered this side of Christmas. Tairāwhiti, Gisborne; in Hawke’s Bay; in my home patch of Auckland—significant impacts, and councillors and mayors and individuals have stepped up to the plate. They’ve done more than would be expected and under difficult circumstances. Yet, at the very same time, the Minister has said, “You know what? We’re going to push this piece of legislation through, making important changes, but we’re only going to give you 34 days.”

So I think what that evidences and substantiates is a Government that does not listen, a Government that does not keep its word, a Government that Kiwis cannot trust and do not trust, and that is the reality of what we have seen.

National, if given the opportunity to govern, will repeal this legislation. We will repeal this and the two other elements of legislation that come before it. Why? Because that is what New Zealanders have clearly said is what they require, and that’s what we will do. Because Kiwis are the people in whom we represent in this House. They are the people which this House represents, and National will listen to Kiwis and make sure that reform in this area is comprehensive and will deal with the issues that they face.

Hon Poto Williams: So—status quo.

SIMON WATTS: The other aspect in regards to this legislation—

Hon Poto Williams: So we go back to the old Resource Management Act, do we?

SIMON WATTS: —which was talked about a lot leading up to that, was in regards to these regional representative groups.

Hon Poto Williams: Because you can’t have a vacuum.

SIMON WATTS: You can hear on the other side, can’t you, Mr Speaker? You can hear the narrative of a Government under pressure, and I don’t blame them. I understand that. You know, they’ve got a Minister that is looking after this bill that yesterday is quoting that he’s going to put a bet on winning the election. That is what the Minister of this bill is focused on, making bets about winning an election. Are we serious? Are we serious that that is fundamentally the biggest issue that our country faces? No, Kiwis see through that. Kiwis are sensible and can see through that this is a Government that is distracted.

But I want to get back to the elements of the bill in regards to the regional representative groups, the groups that are meant to, in effect, represent stakeholders in regards to these mega-bureaucratic entities which this Government has created. One of the biggest entities is in Canterbury-Westland—15 councils will form part of that entity. So under the governance model, there will be a minimum of 15 representatives from the territorial authorities and 15 members from local iwi—so 30 people sitting around that regional representative group.

Excuse me, Mr Speaker, for sort of having a little bit of a laugh or a joke, a bit of a cough there, because when you think about the effectiveness of having 30 people around the table—think about the family Christmas. We have many people at the family Christmas, how often around that big table of 30 extended family, whānau, are they all going to agree, right? Let’s be realistic. Sometimes, with respect, even if you’ve got two people at the table—and maybe it’s only in my own position—you don’t agree. But 30 is absolutely, hopelessly impractical and going to be ineffective. Yet these representatives are going to be the ones that represent and reflect the views of the communities which will be implicated by this legislation.

Don’t forget those individuals aren’t democratically elected onto that governance group either—not even the council representatives need to be democratically elected. So what hope do New Zealanders in our communities have to be able to influence the decision making that affects one of the most important assets and one of the most important aspects of their life—the provision of water? Well, they don’t have any. It is a façade, and this Government have failed to listen to that feedback through the select committee process to make the changes that would, in effect, make the improvements required.

I’m out of time, and you know, I think the points are clearly made in regards to this. This is a bill that this Government will ram through in the next nine days of this Parliament, irrespective of the opposition, irrespective of the public view that says this bill will not deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders. National will repeal this legislation and replace it with “local water done well”, comprehensive policy that will restore local ownership of assets and water assets, implement strong regulation, and, importantly, ensure there is financial sustainability. We oppose this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m proud to be able to take a call on this bill that my select committee, the Governance and Administration Committee, has now presented to back to the House. I do want to thank our chairperson, Ian McKelvie, for handling this process and for enabling us to have robust debates across—I think all parties, almost, were represented on that select committee during this process and able to hear the voices of submitters and of experts.

I wanted to thank our independent advisor as well, and, of course, all of the Government officials who have worked on this bill, who had tirelessly been through all those discussions with us and advised us and debated against us—because I think that’s the best decision making; we can have robust debates and discussions on details—and also to Parliamentary Counsel Office as well for really being able to put your expertise and your experience into the drafting of this bill.

The Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is a bill where we’ve now gone through the initial process at the beginning of our term and landed in a place where we’ve listened to the voices of local councils, we’ve listened to the voices of New Zealanders. As we went up and down the country when the Hon Kieran McAnulty became Minister of Local Government, he knew that local councils wanted more representation and wanted more say on their local water services entity. We balance that want and that desire against balance sheet separation. We want to make sure that we still address the problem that we had to address here with all of our affordable water legislation, which is to make sure that the Government, using its balance sheet, can actually go and fund the water infrastructures, the pipes.

I can say here, probably on the Hansard—I don’t know if I’ll be the first person—but it’s not sexy funding the pipes. But we will make sure that the infrastructure under the ground actually gets it right: so making sure that when there is balance sheet separation, when local government has actually hit their debt ceiling, when they’re no longer enabled to be able to fund them by themselves, and, also, then, to balance that against the benefits of economies of scale.

I think nothing hits home more for me than when we had the discussion about the IT systems. Currently, we have about 30 different IT systems governing our water entities throughout the country. So being able to go and procure a single system—we’re only 5 million people, here in New Zealand, and having different sets of IT systems throughout our country seems almost ridiculous. If we were to compare ourselves to overseas—to the city of Sydney or even to a district in Shanghai—then we would be able to compare ourselves. Why would we have 30 or so different systems to govern our water services? So as we balance all of those things—so we balance the participation, the control, and the voice that we want our local governments to have in our water entities; as we balance the need for balance sheet separation and as we balance the need for economies of scale—we’ve landed it here with 10 entities.

I also just wanted to touch on some of those details that we’ve discussed in the select committee process. One of them is to be able to give reassurance to our local government bodies when the establishment date is. So we’ve promised, here in this legislation, that it would be within six months of the commencement date—to give reassurance to the entities, to council, but also be able to give reassurance to the workforce as well. We do know that the water workforce is quite a specialised one, and we have experts being in some of those existing councils and entities at the moment. We want to be able to hold them over so that they can continue to be in that space for the new entities as well, because it is a really specialised workforce and I would call it even a community amongst themselves and they all know each other really well. We want to be able to retain that, especially when we have a labour market shortage at this moment as well.

We wanted to make sure that there were provisions and clear guidelines for mergers. We had explored whether or not we would allow mergers to happen before the establishment date, and we had actually seriously contemplated all those different ones, having heard from some mayors in particular who had that desire. But we landed on that we would give one just to make sure that there was one clear guideline, and just to make sure that the legislation, which we have now presented to the House, is a tidy one. We made sure that there were consumer forms, that there was a voice for consumers’ voice to be heard—for them to be embedded in this. We also made sure that there were provisions for collective bargaining together, as all of the workforce of the water entities that we honour and that we treasure so dearly, knowing that they are the ones who will have to actually do the mahi.

So this is a great bill. We’ve given it a lot of consideration, term by term, so that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, that was a heroic rewriting of history for the member who’s just resumed their seat, Naisi Chen. I shout out to her for the hutzpah that she demonstrated. She’s a diligent and hardworking member, but goodness gracious me—some of the stuff she was saying: “Long consideration”, “We’ve really worked hard on this”.

This bill is the Government back-down bill, that’s what it is. It’s an embarrassing bill, and members on the Government side know it’s embarrassing because it’s worth remembering that this is yet another piece of water services legislation. But this is the legislation that changes the four - mega-entity model into the 10-entity model, which was forced on the Government by the National Party and by communities up and down the country who said, “Actually, you have stuffed this up from the start.” We went through this rigmarole last year with the former Minister of Local Government refusing adamantly to make any changes. Under the Ardern regime, we were told that the Government had it all fine, they’d sorted it all through—and then, as it turns out, they hadn’t.

We finally, at the start of this year, had the changeover to the 10-entity model, and this is the bill that gives effect to it. So what was apparently all done and dusted, perfect piece of legislative architecture and reform of local government, was all fine; and now, of course, the Government accepts the problems.

But the problem is the Government has stuffed this issue from the start. There is actually consensus, I think, around Parliament that we need water infrastructure reform. But the Government has gone out of its way to insult and belittle local democracy and local councils and local communities.

It all goes back to the absurd ad campaign that the Government ran right at the start back in 2020, I think it was—Simon Watts is nodding—2020, in which we had these absurd ads on television run by the Department of Internal Affairs that really got the backs up of local councils, who said, “Well hang on a minute, you’re tarring us all with the same brush. You’re insulting us by implying we can’t do things better. Why don’t you work with us rather than against us?” The Government said, basically, “Talk to the hand,” from Nanaia Mahuta, “I know best.” Well, as it turns out, she doesn’t know best and that’s why she ultimately lost her job as Minister of Local Government.

So it all goes back to that, and now this is the tail end of what’s been a pretty dire process run by the Government. So we are up for water infrastructure reform and we’ve laid out a comprehensive plan to do it. The major difference between us and the Labour Government on this issue is that we will work with local councils and in partnership with them, rather than basically by dictating to them what they should do.

Three points of disagreement with the Government on this bill. The first is the confiscation, and that is really important. Members can kind of belittle it or dance around the issue or obfuscate as much as they would like, but this bill confiscates the assets of local councils. There’s just no doubt about that. That’s what the legislation does; that’s the point of it all. What it does is take all of those water assets and bundle them all up into—it used to be four and now it’s 10. So changing the number might make the Government feel a little bit better about life. It doesn’t actually change the underlying fundamentals, which is that this is confiscation of local assets.

Local communities and local councils have not been given the ability to figure out for themselves how they reconstitute their asset and their ownership structures in order to give effect to what I think everyone agrees is the right thing to do, which is balance sheet separation so that you get borrowing over the long term to make the required investments. Our view is that that should be done, in the first instance, by local councils and by local communities. So that’s the first issue.

The second issue is the mandatory co-governance that is imposed on these 10 new entities. The Government has just refused to listen on this point. So these regional representative groups that impose 50:50 co-governance on the groups—the regional representative bodies—the bill continues and strengthens. We oppose that provision. We do accept that Māori have rights and interests in water—that’s an important thing to give effect to—but there is no need for 50:50 mandatory cogovernance, and the Government has never made the case properly for it.

In fact, we had this absurd scenario of the new-ish Minister of Local Government, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, going on Q+A and basically saying that democracy was one thing in the academic textbooks but New Zealand had a different version of it—which I think was news to most New Zealanders. Then the other absurdist claim that he made is that the 50:50 co-governance provisions help with the balance sheet separation, which again doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. So I don’t think he even really knew what he was arguing, it’s just ridiculous. It’s basically a continuation of what the Government had before, and they’ve never properly made the case as to why Māori interests in water have to be given effect to through mandatory co-governance; they’ve never made that case. Our view is it’s not required.

The third issue is something that has escaped a little bit of attention but is actually, I think, the most significant part of the reforms—which is the Te Mana o te Wai statements that the bill gives effect to. Here’s the key distinction. Under the water services legislation proposed by the Government, relevant iwi and hapū will be able to issue Te Mana o te Wai statements to the water services bodies, these new entities. The water service entities must respond to them. They must.

Now, the Government quite rightly has been criticised for this and their way through this to make sure everyone feels equal—or at least has the appearance of equality—is to invent this new concept called community priority statements. The difference is this: community priority statements only have to “may be considered” by the water services entities. So Te Mana o te Wai statements “must be considered”—that’s mandatory—but community priority statements “may be considered” by the new entities.

So we’re going to end up with the situation where the only groups and the only people who can issue Te Mana o te Wai statements are hapū and iwi. A whole bunch of interest groups—I’m thinking of, say Federated Farmers, for example—or there may be a whole bunch of different groups in a particular local area. They might issue their own statement to the water services entity, and the water services entity can just go, “Well, that’s cool. Thanks very much for that, but we’re not paying any attention to it. Because the law only says we ‘may’ consider it, but we’re not going to.” It’s discretionary. It’s flexibility. It’s discretionary. So they may do it, but they also may not. But when it comes to the Te Mana o te Wai statements, that’s mandatory; those bodies are in breach of the law if they do not respond and take them into account. Our view is that is grossly inappropriate and wrong.

Then we get to the breadth of the Te Mana o te Wai statements, because there is no guidance, there are no parameters—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, this is an amendment bill.

CHRIS BISHOP: That’s right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’re now talking to the substantive bill, so in the time left to you, just how it relates to the amendment.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, clause 145C is the relevant clause. The key point is this: that the bill doesn’t amend the Te Mana o te Wai and statement of community priority nexus and framework, and that’s the point. The committee had an opportunity to change it and they chose not to, and that is wrong. Our view is that the breadth and the length of the Te Mana o te Wai statements is going to cause potential chaos when it comes to these water services entities’ conduct and behaviour as they go forward.

So this is an embarrassing back-down bill by the Government. We are opposed to the confiscation, we are opposed to the mandatory co-governance, and we are opposed to the inequality of Te Mana o te Wai statements versus community priority statements. National will properly reform water infrastructure governance and regulation and funding and financing in Government. New Zealand needs it, but they do not need this retrograde bill.

Well, Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been interesting listening to the member who has just resumed his seat, Chris Bishop, making a number of statements with regards to this bill—and, Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. Kia orana.

Mr Speaker, I support the second reading of this bill. The Government, as you heard the Minister this morning, talks about the reforms of the water services entity, because it is a better bill. Although the member previous to me had made a number of statements regarding our Ministers of Government, I can tell you now that, coming from South Auckland and visiting the Māngere waste-water plant, the infrastructure reforms are really, really important, particularly for iwi and hapū and for communities who need the support of Government in terms of water infrastructure. Water is a taonga to iwi and hapū and New Zealanders. It is really important that that side gets what this bill is talking about.

I want to highlight that this bill creates dedicated water service entities, and it will have regional representation. Although we’ve heard other speakers from across the House speak about why regional representation is important, I can tell you now, Mr Speaker, that, as a local elected council member, we saw quite intimately why infrastructure reform is required: so that the Government can support—because councils can’t afford it, they really can’t. We worked, as elected council representatives, going around, having a view of the waste-water plants in South Auckland and the requirements. So this bill helps creates that infrastructure.

I want to commend the select committee; I am not a member. I also thank the submitters who gave varying views on this bill.

National left us with no credibility in terms of water infrastructure. The status quo was unsustainable. Councils and CEOs needed to raise enough money to invest in water infrastructure; it is a requirement. People need clean water.

What I want to highlight is that local councils just cannot afford it. This bill, as you’ve heard, our Minister of Local Government, Minister McAnulty, went around the motu and had a kōrero with many communities. The bill fits into our larger plan, and it will invest its estimation of billions of dollars over the next 30 years, because, without these changes, Kiwis across the motu would see unaffordable increases to their rates for the investment that is needed.

Whilst I’ve heard that the Minister went around and heard from communities, and then I also heard that the words in the legislation “may” or “can”, I can tell you now that the Government has been listening and is serious about investing in water infrastructure, because that clean water needs to get to our communities wherever they are—urban or rural across the motu.

So, Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACT engaged constructively with the Government and with officials at the Department of Internal Affairs when the three waters reforms were first proposed, because ACT agrees there is a problem with the condition of existing water infrastructure at many councils in many regions around the country. It’s been run down through a lack of investment, a lack of maintenance, and there is a huge demand for growth, particularly in the major metros like Auckland, where the need to service land for future urban development and the lack of infrastructure services mean that land cannot be offered for housing. That is inducing an upward pressure on land prices and making housing unaffordable. These reforms, as proposed by Labour, will not address that.

I’d just like to come back to the comments of some of the Labour members. The member Naisi Chen sat on the committee for the 34 days of the hearing and claimed that the committee had offered consideration for those 34 days and that the bill that’s been beaten into shape somehow addresses the concerns of most of the submitters who were opposed to this amendment. I would disagree with that.

I want to offer a perspective on the previous Labour speaker’s commentary, particularly around water as a taonga. Now, water is important. Water sustains life on earth as we know it. But if we’re going to confuse water having a spiritual dimension with the metaphysical, with the biophysical, then we’re never going to solve this country’s problems; we’re never going to be able to build the infrastructure we need, deliver water for communities, for businesses, for farmers, in the places that we need it, because there will always be a cultural veto based on this concept of water and its spiritual dimensions, expressed through Te Mana o te Wai, which is the principal way of allocating water resources to find through the hierarchy of water legislation this Government has passed.

Now, I want to come to some specific problems with this bill. This bill reforms the Water Services Entities Act passed in 2022, which established four water services entities. After listening to the Opposition, ACT, and all those communities which said, “Hey, you shouldn’t take our assets and put them in four water entities.”, the Government announced, “OK, we’ll do 10. We’ll do 10.” Well, taking local community assets and putting them in either four or 10 entities, and removing control from democratically elected councils and their ratepayers, is unacceptable. The High Court agreed with the Water Users’ Group, that took an action, that it amounts to confiscation, and confiscation without compensation is expropriation. That’s called theft, Labour—theft of these assets.

That’s what the court ruled. But, of course, Labour has a majority. They can pass any laws they like that confiscate private property, and that’s what they’ve done through the Water Services Entities Act. This bill only continues that expropriation.

Now, there are other problems apart from the theft of local assets. Ten entities—well, officials and the Minister accepted that the economic efficiencies gained by having four entities are significantly diluted by having to stand up ten entities, all of the back office, all of the chief executives, and all of the overheads required to stand up ten entities.

ACT does not agree that this cost is warranted. Local councils who own the existing assets could be supported in other ways, such as by encouraging them to form council-controlled trading organisations, like Auckland’s Watercare. They could be encouraged to form alliances, programme alliances, voluntary associations. They could be encouraged and facilitated to carry out joint procurement of major capital programmes and maintenance operations contracts. They don’t have to be or shouldn’t have to be water services that have adjoining regional boundaries, which is required by this bill.

I mean, we only have to look at Christchurch’s Citycare, a council-controlled organisation, to see that they are able to undertake water maintenance contracting all around the country, not just in Christchurch. So the rationale that Labour has applied to this to support this contention that water service entities must have regional boundaries adjoining them is a fallacy.

Now, I want to come to the regional representative groups. If this bill was focused on water infrastructure, better management, raising the funds, financing these big projects, creating a regulatory system that puts some rules in place so that local government and asset owners were actually meeting their community needs, providing for depreciation and funding growth, then ACT could probably have supported the intention of this legislation, But introducing co-governance entities—regional representative groups made up of a dozen or more councils, a dozen or more 50:50 iwi and hapū representatives—actually wrecks the entire outcome of this policy.

There is no justification for it. I will remind the Labour members of this House what the former Minister of Local Government Nanaia Mahuta stated in answer to a written question from ACT: Simon Court to the Minister of Local Government: “Does the Minister believe that Māori have rights and interests in three waters assets built after 1840; if so, why?” The Minister replied, “To my knowledge, Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those or ratepayers in their respective community of interest.” There you go. Take co-governance, take allocating seats on boards based on ethnicity out of this reform agenda, because it’s not necessary. It’s not needed. There’s no legal need. There’s no Waitangi claim which insists that it be in there. The former Minister of Local Government herself stated there is no interest above that of members of a community. That is why ACT says we can do three waters reform without co-governance.

ACT agrees that councils and their trading organisations should have much greater access to many more different types of funding and financing arrangements. Currently, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act provides for councils, for example, to access funding by standing up a special purpose vehicle—an off-the-balance-sheet fund to build infrastructure. In fact, Wellington Water is in the process of gaining approval through that very Act—the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act—to stand up a special purpose vehicle to fund the upgrade of the Moa Point waste-water treatment plant. The legislation already exists. ACT believes it could be improved but that the funding and financing and the balance sheet separation is already available to local government.

I want to come to the implementation. The cost of implementing these reforms has ballooned from $2 billion initially estimated to now $3 billion. For the cost of procuring a single information system, over $500 million has been budgeted, plus maybe $100 million more in contingency. It turns out that every council in New Zealand already has an asset management system. I worked in Auckland Council—there’s a large international provider that has allocated an asset ID number to every manhole, every manhole lid, and you can go on Auckland Council’s geographic information system right now, and you can click on a manhole and a pipe anywhere in the city and you can get the asset information about it.

But this Government reckons spending $500 million on a new compulsory IT system for councils is necessary. Not only that—this Government is keeping on three redundant chief executives on a pay of between $600,000 and $800,000 a year just in case a few spare chief executives are needed, who will be made redundant by the passing of this legislation.

ACT does not support this bill passing. We will repeal it and replace it with ACT’s infrastructure policy should we have the opportunity.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m pleased to take a call on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. Can I acknowledge the value of the change in Standing Orders which allows members of parties who don’t have a permanent representative on a select committee to attend. I really appreciated being engaged with the Governance and Administration Committee and acknowledge the chair, Ian McKelvie, and the deputy, Rachel Boyack, for quite constructive discussions.

It was a really truncated consideration period, of just over a month, which did lead to challenges, particularly for submitters, with the limited time that they had to analyse and comment on the bill. But the committee did the best job it could, and I would also like to acknowledge the work of officials from the Department of Internal Affairs, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and select committee staff for the work that they did as well. It was a lot of work to get done in a very constrained period.

The Green Party had opposed the principal Act, and we continue to oppose the corporatisation ethos that’s at the heart of this, but we recognise that there do need to be significant changes in the provision of three waters and that this bill does take on board the concerns of local councils and many members of the public in ensuring that there is much stronger local representation and that the entities are better connected to local communities by increasing the number of entities from four to 10. So we will be supporting the bill.

We also continue to oppose having stormwater connected with drinking and waste water and passing to the entities. Because stormwater is so related to planning, to the way our cities and towns grow, to the provision of green space, recreational areas, to ensuring that nature can absorb stormwater, this is a major problem in the principal Act: that it has stormwater passed to the entities.

But, turning to the bill, there were quite a lot of submissions about the start date, the go-live date for the entities, and quite a lot of concern about the uncertainty that having Orders in Council to establish the go-live date created, not least from the unions—the PSA and E tū, in particular—because of the uncertainty that that created for staff and councils who will be transferring or going across to the entities. We heard quite a lot of submissions on this, and Entity A—Northland and Auckland councils—is the only entity that has its establishment date in the legislation. But the committee stuck with having the Order in Council process because there wasn’t enough time in our truncated consideration to reach a consensus across councils, mana whenua, and stakeholders over what the golive date for each entity should be.

There was certainly useful feedback from the representatives of the National Transition Unit on what they had been hearing on the roadshow. There is some discussions about that, but there were changes in relation to requiring consultation before the Order in Council established a go-live date, and ensuring that those Orders in Council are released six months after the bill becomes law. So there is increased certainty there.

The staff retention issue, which others have commented on, was quite a big one. The committee did consider whether there should be specific provision for the nature of retention payments in the bill, but local authorities already have an ability to offer retention payments for staff. There are some 7,500 staff working on three waters across councils and council-controlled organisations around Aotearoa—people with a lot of expertise, a lot of knowledge—and it’s really critical that they stay in this water service space, because otherwise there’s potential disruption to council services and also a loss of expertise going across into the entities.

So the provision that the committee inserted around collective bargaining and enabling collective bargaining to occur through the Department of Internal Affairs, or representatives that they nominate, before the entities are established should assist there in ensuring that the importance of those employees in councils and their expertise is really well recognised. There was the issue of potential loss of staff from the entities that are established first poaching others. We did understand, too, that, while retention payments in the private sector could be between 10 and 25 percent of salary, it’s likely to be much smaller in this space.

Going on to another issue of representation, because we’ve now got 10 entities and there is now in the bill no minimum or maximum in terms of the representation from councils—in terms of their numbers—it’s up to the councils to really negotiate that amongst themselves in the entity areas and to establish that through their constitution; other than Northland and Auckland, where the numbers of representatives from the contributing councils are set out in the bill. There’s one issue here: in terms of Canterbury - West Coast, that will have 30 members on the regional representative group, and big metros, like Christchurch City Council, are potentially then underrepresented, because they may be able to negotiate with other councils that they should have more than one representative but the principal Act ensures that votes cannot be weighted; that they’re all equal. So there is a real issue, in terms of that formation of the entities, about the number of representatives that goes to the metropolitan councils, so that they are truly representing their communities and the populations in those communities.

There are other factors in the bill, in terms of the scale of infrastructure and delivery needs, the relative urban growth and development, which can contribute to that process of determining how many representatives each territorial authority gets on the regional representative group, but groups that are 30 in size, I think, will find it quite challenging in terms of how they operate, just because of the sheer number of mana whenua and territorial authority representatives that are there. Again, the issue of balance sheet separation was really what was driving this issue of ensuring that councils are distant from key decisions. We seem to be being informed by what Standard & Poor’s wants to ensure that you get that balance sheet separation, and that is influencing the representation arrangements. So I don’t think they’re as democratic as they could be.

One other issue that the select committee spent quite a lot of time on was shared services, because of the desire with 10 entities to retain the efficiencies that you theoretically get with four entities—so the ability of the Minister to provide quite a lot of direction around what services should be shared. I understand that the Department of Internal Affairs, through the National Transition Unit, is wanting to establish a digital shared service, which will be jointly owned and controlled by all 11 entities once they are established, to operate the corporate systems, technology, how people access and store documents, how they receive emails, how they interact with customers, and also the system of record in terms of asset management.

The costs of this are going to be significant. The previous member, Simon Court, talked about $500 million. The regulatory impact statement estimates that $150 million has been budgeted for the shared services work. Particularly in the IT sector, when a number of councils already have their own IT systems, just combining these or just having one multinational provide one system across the country might sound efficient, but I remember Novopay. This whole area of IT needs to have a very robust business case and very close ministerial scrutiny and accountability to ensure that we don’t get some of the IT disasters that we’ve seen in the past when you’re going to just one system. I think it creates almost a monopoly, so it would actually be better potentially to have a couple of providers so that there is no monopoly situation with just one provider.

The committee did amend some of the provisions to put a check on the Minister’s power of directions and, as the Hon Rachel Brooking in making the first speech in the second reading noted, there is now no ability for the Minister to provide direction around shared services after that 1 July 2026 debate, and there were some other constraints put on the Minister’s power there. The bill has been improved—as bills always are—through the select committee process, and it’s unfortunate there wasn’t more time.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. New Zealand is a relatively small city compared to the rest of the world. We are a long, narrow city, yes, but compared to many other nations and states around the world, New Zealand is a relatively small city. Therefore, there are things I think we have done for so long—and we look back at the reforms of the 1980s in local government, we look at reforms that have gone on with the super-city in Auckland in the 2010s, we look at reforms that go on constantly throughout our nation, and in this House. We are always looking for ways and means to ensure that we care, and make sure that we do have affordable water, we do have affordable services to serve all people. This is what the Water Services Entity Amendment Bill participates in. It’s listening, looking, and finding ways that we can actually do right by our communities. So therefore, I’m supporting this bill today.

Now, yesterday was a significant day in Taranaki. It was a very significant day for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was significant because it was the first time the New Plymouth District Council had their council meeting at Ōwae marae in Waitara. The first time they actually went and left the chamber and actually sat face to face with local iwi, and with local hapū.

Yesterday was also a significant day because on their agenda yesterday at Ōwae marae in Waitara they were discussing the Taranaki Position Statement that has been put out around the water services entities amendment—around becoming an entity in Taranaki. So South Taranaki District Council, Stratford District Council, New Plymouth District Council, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Mutunga, Te Ati Awa, Taranaki Iwi, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Ruanui, and Ngā Rauru are all on this document looking at what this legislation is posing to implement, and to amend.

Speaking in favour of what it looks like for us in Taranaki as a combined group—not only of councils, of regional council but also of iwi and hapū groups—saying, yes, we see our future. I want to comment on our mayor, Neil Holdom, from New Plymouth, who—let’s be honest, I’ve had many robust conversations in his office, out and about, around the work that we’re doing on three waters. We haven’t always agreed, but we have agreed on many things as well. He talked yesterday—and he’s talked many times—about the fact that change is coming, that councils in Taranaki, that iwi in Taranaki could put their heads in the sand; they could put their heads in their hands; they could ignore it; they could fight it; or they could get ahead of it. They are getting ahead of it.

Yesterday, the New Plymouth District Council signed up to the Taranaki Position Statement supporting the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill to ensure that an entity is established in Taranaki working together with everyone. That really encourages me, because this place—and we’ve heard earlier in the conversation, in the debate today, and in select committee, that it’s about a contest of ideas and challenges, but it’s kind of hard when there’s only one side with the ideas.

So it’s sort of hard to have a contest of ideas when it’s the ideas that we have—proposing, and we hear shouting and screaming from the other side, but I don’t see ideas coming from the National Party; I don’t see ideas coming around how we can actually reform, and ensure that us a small city compared to the rest of the world can actually make change that actually will serve our people here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

So this is simple legislation; this is legislation that is going to ensure better community voice. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had the pleasure of sitting on the committee on this bill. It is probably the most terrible bill I’ve seen in my 18 years in this Parliament. It was a complete and utter farce. It was done so quickly and there was not one inkling of taking on board what people actually submitted about the bill. It was purely done for procedural, process reasons, and the Labour committee members loved every moment of it. It was a complete waste of time.

There is no need for this reform. The essence of what the Government is saying is that they’re going to put everybody together and suddenly we’re going to have this big value increase that we can fund all these great projects from. Well, that doesn’t make sense when the really big communities like Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, and all that, are really struggling around water issues. You look at the Auckland one, for example: Auckland’s in big trouble around water. If you looked at doing stormwater for the coast so that those beaches you can actually swim in—and some of the Labour members there, the North Shore beaches, you know, even the ones on the east coast of the city, if you could actually do that—it’s going to cost billions and billions of dollars. The only place they’re getting money for from this bill is poor old Whangarei District Council that’s actually got a surplus. They’re using Whangārei’s assets to try and rebuild Auckland’s water, and that was replicated all through the country—all these councils that had done a great job in managing their water are now going to be subsumed for the benefit of those that haven’t.

It doesn’t add up. So the only thing that happens is there must be a cost blowout on ratepayers. Ratepayers are going to have to pay big money once this bill goes through. The other thing is that all the costs around this bill—every single cost that came up, with IT, and all that—have all been pushed off until after the entities are created so that those entities have to foot the bill. There’s no cost on the Government—amazing, that, isn’t it? This is something that’s going to make a massive change—IT and everything is going to cost millions if not billions, and the ACT members said $2 billion or $3 billion—and it’s all put off to the new entity, with no liability on this Government.

Now, we had council after council come in and say, “We oppose this because they’re basically asset stripping us and taking those assets away.” I said to them: “Well, didn’t the Minister come and see you on his grand tour and engage with you?”, and they said, “Yes, he did. But then he told us at the end, ‘I’m just going to do it anyway.’ ” There was no consultation; there was no actual regard for their views and what their communities had built up over many years, so you wonder why they are doing this.

There’s no economic imperative because the numbers just don’t stack up. There’s no way that they can deliver what they’re talking about from the numbers that come from council waters across the country. There’s no community recognition that it needs to have this happen. The councils were opposed. So why are they doing it? The only reason is they want to enshrine co-governance of water at this stage. That’s the only reason the Labour Government is doing this: they know, in their heart of hearts, this will not work, but it does enshrine co-governance of water. That is what they know and they’ve been all told to be quiet, to just do what they’re told to do, and pass this bill through the House. That’s the reality of what we’re dealing with here today.

The best part of it was when Rachel Boyack decided she would become the union vanguard and put these new clauses in around how the unions would, basically, be doing negotiations, and it floundered for two or three days on this issue. It was probably the most discussion that the Labour Party had, and I’m sure the Minister would have had a few calls to her at night, going, “What the hell are you doing putting that in the bill?” But the Labour Party members were told what to do.

Hon Scott Simpson: Who by?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, the Minister, completely. The Minister had no direction—there’s no economic reason, there’s no social reason; the only reason is to enshrine co-governance. That’s what we’re doing here today—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member’s time is up.

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Golly, that was an interesting speech. That was completely divorced from any form of reality.

It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. I didn’t have the privilege of sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee, but I commend them—I nearly accidentally said “condemn”; I do mean commend. I commend them for their diligent work. Look, this bill is yet another bill that has been subject to significant mis- and disinformation, and I’m not going to be pointing any fingers here.

So what I thought would be helpful would be if I just have a little revisit of what this bill actually does do.

Angie Warren-Clark: Some facts would be great.

SARAH PALLETT: This bill—facts, thank you. Facts: it creates 10 dedicated water services entities, and the reason why this amendment is being made to the Water Services Entities Act, to replace four water services entities with 10, is basically because we listened. We listened to communities, and what moving from four to 10 water services entities allows for is greater community ownership of water entities. This bill also guarantees that every district is represented on a regional representative group. That voice is critically important: it establishes community priority statements that can be submitted to a regional representative group and staggers establishment dates through to 2026.

Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, you’d have to be living under a rock not to understand that these are critically needed reforms, and you would have to—I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker; not you. One would have to be financially illiterate to think that councils could afford the $185 billion that was absolutely critically important—

Angie Warren-Clark: How much?

SARAH PALLETT: —$185 billion, Ms Warren-Clark; absolutely unaffordable.

The bottom lines on this bill: public ownership of water services entities will continue. Balance sheet separation, which provides for operational and financial independence, is absolutely critical to allow the entities to make investments—although I have to say that the phrase “balance sheet separation” is one that I have to make really slowly; it’s quite a tricky one, quite a tricky phrase, quite an important concept—joint oversight of the entities, and strong regulation of the entities to ensure fair prices for consumers and quality of service. All entities will be publicly owned and regionally led and everybody will be financially better off.

Speaking to Canterbury - West Coast entity, Christchurch city ratepayers will be better off by $2,860, but the Grey District Council residents, $18,760 would have to be found under National’s non-plan, uncosted, as per every single policy that they have put forward it is simply unaffordable. For that reason, I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. I just want to thank the Hon Kieran McAnulty for bringing this important bill before the House. I also want to thank my colleagues on the select committee for their work on the bill.

This bill continues on the work done by this Labour Government to improve the water infrastructure across New Zealand for the long term. Decades of patchy management and underfunding has left our water infrastructure in a situation that’s not delivering the best outcomes for our communities. This bill represents a concrete plan to improve the standard of our water infrastructure and allow New Zealanders access to efficient and functioning water for the coming decades.

Last year, a million New Zealanders received tap water that did not meet minimum drinking water standards. In 2020, 40,000 Kiwis had to boil their tap water. This subpar quality of our water infrastructure represents a real danger to all New Zealanders, and it is a burden on the health of many and represents a big inequality between those with access to clean tap water and those who do not. On this side of the House, we believe that this situation is unacceptable and we see it as our responsibility to ensure that all Kiwis have access to clean, safe drinking water.

However, funding for all of this work represents a huge investment. Local councils will need to find up to $185 billion over the next 30 years to finance all the work that’s needed to bring our infrastructure up to that acceptable level. That will need—you know, we’ll need to finance that replacement—hundreds of kilometres of pipes across the country; that’s what’s needed to upgrade the drinking water and waste-water treatment plants and to prevent waste water overflows. We’ve seen a lot of that across flood-affected regions across the North Island.

As things stand now, this cost falls on local councils. Clearly, they are unable to bear this burden. Many councils cannot borrow enough money, and they are also not in a position to increase rates in their districts. So if we don’t do anything, councils will be stuck spending more money to take care of their water infrastructure that is only getting worse.

This is an important bill. It’s taking bold and decisive leadership. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve just got this dreadful feeling of foreboding. This is Groundhog Day and it’s just continual repetitive rhetoric from this Government, because here we are for the fourth time, using the time of Parliament for this Government to rush through a bill that nobody in New Zealand wants.

Yes, we’re here to discuss the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and, embarrassingly for the Government, this is amending a bill that was passed just six months ago. But there was such blow-back from the public and these guys saw what their polls were doing as a reflection of that, and Minister McAnulty was assigned the unenviable task of travelling around the country trying to drum up some support. He took on some bit of feedback. He’s made a couple of tweaks around the edges, which is what we have in this bill here in front of us today, but, actually, it is still a dog. As the saying goes: you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I submit to the House that the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is a pig. If enacted, this will become the final piece of legislation aimed at the so-called reforming of the delivery of water services in New Zealand. But it is the death knell for democracy in New Zealand.

When we go to the polls in October, New Zealanders are going to remember that every single piece of reform in this four-part piece of water reform has been passed under urgency or via a truncated select committee process. New Zealanders are going to remember that. So here we have in front of us a bill that’s been through a select committee, but, as Simon Watts—who’s leading the charge from our side of the House—said, the committee was given just 34 days to consider it. Ordinarily the committee would get six months. They got over 1,900 submissions; they heard just 1.4 percent of those submissions. That is in no way, shape, or form a democratic way to pass law in this country.

No matter what Labour calls it—three waters, 10 waters, affordable water reform—this is still the outright theft of ratepayer-owned water services and water services infrastructure. This is just another example of a command, control, and centralise operation that this Government likes to enforce and foist upon New Zealanders. We’ve got a number of issues remaining with this bill. That is why we continue to oppose it, but primarily it’s the functional system.

We do not believe in merging locally owned water assets into these mega-entities, and I take, for example, what was once called Entity D, now Entity I, the South Island. I want to talk about my home patch in Selwyn. Under the Canterbury - West Coast merger, that includes—according to this map I’m holding, which has come via the select committee—14 different councils. Now, if you calculate out roughly, on average, about 12 elected members per council, we’re looking at about 176 elected members that we, the ratepayers of Canterbury, have elected to represent us, to manage our locally owned ratepayer assets, yet those reps are going to get boiled down to about 14.

As Eugene Sage pointed out, this does not account for weighting either, and that is fundamentally unfair. Christchurch City Council has a ratepayer base of close to 600,000 residents. Selwyn’s is about 85,000 residents. But nowhere on this do we get weighted representation.

It also begs the question that strong, stable councils like Selwyn, with good, strong asset bases and good, strong finances are inevitably going to end up cross-subsidising councils with lesser ratepayer bases and older infrastructure. Selwyn’s infrastructure is, at a maximum, 20 years old. It’s brand new. We the ratepayers have spent $600 million over the last 20 years in building those assets. We the ratepayers own those assets. Wellington, the Labour Government, does not own those assets. It has no right to take these assets. The people of Selwyn are furious about this. As my colleague Scott Simpson has eloquently stated, it is State-sanctioned theft.

We also have an issue with the weighting of the elected representatives on these regional representative bodies with mana whenua. Now, we have always been very clear—we absolutely acknowledge and appreciate mana whenua has a very important role to play in the management of water in New Zealand. But, again, you have to ask yourself—looking to this example in CanterburyWestland, where we have about 14 elected members, we’re also going to have about 14 representatives from mana whenua. They have not been elected to this body. The ratepayers across Canterbury and Westland are not going to be electing these people to manage their assets.

The major issue we have, speaking of fundamentally unfair aspects of this bill, is also the weighting between the community priority statement and the Te Mana o Te Wai statement. Again, within this bill, the legislation will actually say that the regional representative body must take into account Te Mana o Te Wai statement, yet it may consider community statements. Now, how is that possibly fair? No right-minded New Zealander will accept this. You have to look at the discrepancies in every single aspect of this bill. There are inequities all through it. Co-governance is baked into it. New Zealanders have not been consulted on it. The Labour Government has not, in any way, put up any defence or at least any description of what co-governance should and will look like. It has just baked it into the legislation.

On this side of the House, we do understand that in parts of New Zealand there is a fundamental need to fix our infrastructure problems. We all saw the Havelock North disaster. National was in Government; National brought in the royal commission of inquiry; National started to implement the findings of that commission of inquiry. But this bill goes too far. Yes, there are councils around the country that need support in rebuilding their infrastructure. We do support the likes of the water regulator and we also want to impose an infrastructure regulator. We want councils to bring their proposal to us, to our Minister, who will be able to sign off as to the financial sustainability of what that council’s asset plan looks like.

But returning very briefly to the bill in the last moments I have left, when Kiwis go to the polls in October, as I’ve outlined, they’re going to look at bills like this. They’re going to take into account the first part of this bill that attracted 86,000 submissions that were roundly ignored and another 1,900 submissions that were roundly ignored. They’re not going to forget that. They know, when they go to the polls, that this piece of legislation does nothing to provide safe quality water to their homes and to their families. We continue to oppose this bill and we will repeal and replace it if we form a Government in October.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nicola Grigg is one of the most respected members in the House, in my view. I appreciate her contribution, usually. One thing that Nicola Grigg also knows is that the pipes below the ground in the water infrastructure in Selwyn are absolutely shocking, and that National has no plan—no plan—whatsoever on how they are going to upgrade the water infrastructure in Selwyn, across New Zealand, and in Auckland. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! I do actually want to hear the contribution from the member. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a wonderful contribution because the question in the House today, of course, is: how is our country going to upgrade our water infrastructure deficit? It’s $185 billion—

Angie Warren-Clark: How much?

SHANAN HALBERT: It’s going to cost New Zealanders $185 billion—minimum, it’s going to cost—to upgrade our water infrastructure across New Zealand to get it to the place where New Zealanders actually expect it to be, and that is a lot of money. That is a huge investment.

Of course, when we look at National’s track record on investment in infrastructure, that’s also shocking because they don’t invest in transport infrastructure. They didn’t invest in housing, and now they’re saying that they don’t want to invest in water infrastructure. These are basic fundamentals of a good New Zealand that we want to be a part of.

I want to turn my attention to Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland. I’ve spent a lot of time sitting, when this bill was originally at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, listening to New Zealanders and listening to submissions. When we look at this piece, actually, it strengthens—it strengthens—the opportunities and the representation for Aucklanders.

If we look at it—and if I go back to the point of the Government of the day that established Auckland Council—a National and an ACT Government established Auckland Council as a supercity and established a council-controlled organisation called Watercare that actually doesn’t have elected members on their representative body now. Can I say that again: it does not have elected members on their representative body, a representative body that now includes elected members and mana whenua from across the region. So my argument is that it’s a better representative model for Aucklanders.

Aucklanders know. They saw back in last July a 9 percent increase in their water rates—9 percent Aucklanders are facing—and yet, while National doesn’t support this bill, what they haven’t told New Zealanders and Aucklanders is how they are going to actually fund the upgrade of water infrastructure. They’ve talked about the lack of infrastructure in this House. Simon Watts, the MP for North Shore, has talked about Wairau Valley, which had a shocking impact in the Auckland floods at the start of the year, and there is the need to upgrade that and support local businesses. I often talk about the paru—the dirty—beaches, and how Aucklanders on the North Shore had to close their beaches and not have access to them. This fundamentally comes back to the need for better water infrastructure for Aucklanders.

The conversation is: how are we going to invest the $185 billion that we need to? National doesn’t have a plan because they don’t invest in infrastructure. The Labour Party is the party for the investment in water infrastructure, the investment in transport, and, of course—that old chestnut that we love—the big investment in housing that they didn’t do.

I’m proud to be part of this side of the House. I’m proud that we’re getting on in difficult times and difficult issues and that we are happy to front up and put solutions forward. The difference between this side of the House and that side is we’ve got the ideas, we’ve got the plans, and we’re getting on with it.

The question is,