Water Services Entities Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 27 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The shortened select committee report-back date will ensure that we are able to provide legislative certainty to the local government sector around long-term planning in particular.

I move, That the motion be amended so that “27 July 2023” is omitted and replaced with “19 November 2023”.

The proposal on the Table this evening in regards to shortening the report-back date for the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is completely outrageous. It is indicating to those watching that this Government is not willing to allow appropriate process and appropriate public consultation that will enable complex and significant changes to this bill to be heard by the public and to allow adequate time in order for them to make those submissions.

As we have heard this afternoon, the changes in regards to this legislation are significant. They are worthy of appropriate scrutiny both by those within this House and also by members of the public. The increasing of the number of entities from four to 10 is of itself a significant change in regards to this legislation. In addition to the changes around the number of entities, it is also proposing that it extend the effective commencement date for two years, which is another significant implication that should be appropriately discussed in regards to the implications that that has on our communities, our neighbourhoods, and in particular the local government entities across this country, who will be significantly impacted by this.

The key aspect and issue of an extension of time for this bill, which is needed for people to provide feedback, is because, for the local government sector, one of the most significant issues it faces is uncertainty and staff turnover. This aspect of the bill is a significant change which requires time for input to be fed in. We have seen throughout this bill, and bills that have preceded it, and bills which this bill amends that are not yet passed into law—and, for those that are trying to follow that narrative, there are two bills on the Order Paper pending second reading—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I’m just going to invite the member to speak more directly to his proposed amendment.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The amendment in regards to the amended report-back date is to allow adequate time for public input in regards to those significant changes.

The other aspect in regards to the motion is the fact that the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which has looked at water services bills to date—and a motion that I have tabled is that this bill is going to be going to the Governance and Administration Committee. This in itself has significant implications: one, because the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee have the continuity of knowledge of the passing of this bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member is speaking to his proposed amendment. Once I have put the motion and the question on the member’s amendment, the debate will open up more broadly to both questions. But, at the moment, the member is speaking to his amendment. He will confine his comments to them.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, as I have outlined, the key issue that we have is in regards to that shortened report-back date that will not allow adequate public input or consideration by members, and all members of this House, in regards to what are complex and significant changes to this bill. We oppose the motion that has been put on the Table by this Government and support the motion that I am tabling that will amend the date from 27 July to 19 November 2023.

I will now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to—that is the Government’s motion. I will also put: the question is that the amendment be agreed to. Now the debate is opened to—I hear Matt Doocey.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, I’d like to rise in opposition to the Minister’s motion about a shortened report-back date of 27 July. When you look at it, for those listening, normally the submissions process is about four to six months. This has been rammed through in a bit over 30 days, and it really makes you wonder: what have they got to hide? The Minister, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, started his contribution in the first reading saying, “This bill comes to the House in good faith; the amendments are in good faith”—but, by the way, we’re going to scurry it through because we don’t want you to look at it too closely. And that really concerns me.

That’s why I think my learned colleague Simon Watts is right on the button. He speaks on behalf of the public to say, “Let’s extend it out to 9 November 2023”—because why would you not give this due diligence, especially when you take the words of the Minister’s own officials? Look in the regulatory impact statement, because it’s just been such a shambles, let’s be honest: “Constraints on timing have limited the amount of research and analysis in the development of options. As a result of these constraints, officials are continuing to work with Ministers and the sector on the impacts of a 10-entity model on transitional arrangements for local government during the establishment period.” So even the officials are acknowledging that, because of constraints of the poorly held legislative process timing of this bill, even they are concerned that the analysis has not been put in place.

Why would we not, then, double down with the submissions process to encourage all those who maybe have some technical expertise to submit as well, just to double check and make sure that what the Minister’s got—what he thinks is the right model—is the correct model, because, as has been pointed out, there’s real concern on this side of the House. This bill is not only amending legislation that’s only recently been passed—with us, the Opposition, calling it the “back-down bill”—but, in fact, is going to amend two bills currently before the House, and that’s why I think it needs a full submissions process for the oversight, and for the public to have their say.

Then, the final point I’d make: this bill kicks out the implementation date by two years. If we have extended the implementation date by two years, why are we truncating the public submissions time frame? It actually doesn’t add up, because what’s going to happen is that, if they get it through, there are going to be errors and there’s going to have to be workarounds. What we know is that they’re rushing this through for political reasons.

There’s actually a lot of public interest in this bill. There were thousands of submissions on the first bill—that, actually, is not good enough, because we’re now amending it because they finally listened to the public and they felt that electoral pressure. But there’s a lot of public interest. The Government is trying to ram it through and talk about it as little as possible. I think, in due process, when you look at those points that I’ve raised—around the officials concerned in the regulatory impact statement, the public interest in this bill, and also this bill amending two bills before the House and the extended implementation date of two years—it’s only right, and I’d call on the other parties in this House this afternoon, to support Simon Watts’ motion of giving the public a say. And why wouldn’t we do that—extending the date out to 9 November 2023? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

There is no doubt that, when you look at the bill that the Minister has just had read for the first time, there is in that an admission that the water reform policy brought down by the current Government is in utter tatters. We’ve had three years, at least, of being told that the four entities, which the Government have set up in legislation, that exist now, is the best way to progress the water reforms in this country. So, having done that, and then latterly listening to public opinion, there’s been a massive scrambling and a running round and a coming up with this bill that increases the number of entities to 10.

It seems just unreasonable that we could have about three years of public discussion on one proposal and then only 30 days discussion on the new proposal. That doesn’t indicate a Government that listens. It doesn’t show respect for Parliament, given that these sorts of reforms tend to become quite deep; they are part of the infrastructure of New Zealand. I’d also just say: look, councils throughout New Zealand, who have objected in large numbers to the previous proposal—the proposal that’s still on the books; the proposal that is still the law—and have rejected that in many of their submissions and efforts to talk to the Government, are now given just 30 days to come up with their consideration on this particular new bill. I think that is totally unreasonable. So I support strongly the motion moved by Mr Watts that would kick that report-back date out to 19 November. Now, I think the other side of the House knows what that means, and that’s the reason why they’ve had to dig their toes in on this very, very disrespectful 30 days to make a submission.

There are billions of dollars of local government assets at stake in this proposal. If people want to know what a total shambles it is, the so-called compensation for—or the confiscation of—those assets has already been paid out. We’ve had a situation where a compensation was paid for the current legal proposal that’s out there—the four waters entities—but now, all of a sudden, there’s a panic because it’s not popular, it’s not liked, and it doesn’t have the level of support that it would need to make a difference. Then we have this trumped-up little bill here that expands it out to 10 entities, with very, very limited opportunity for communities to have a say in their water resources—no greater, in fact, than they would have under the four entities. So a democratic right to be able to speak to your local government about the water situation in the area that one might live in is taken away. Right now, it’s gone because of the four-water proposal; now we have the 10-water proposal, and it’s still gone, because there’s this Mickey Mouse sort of talking to various little groups that are put together, presumably, by the vested interests, and we carry on.

How can it be a bad thing for the House to say, “Look, let’s give the public a little more time to digest this very big change. Let’s give the public a little bit more time to recognise that this is a massive U-turn.”—actually, not quite a U-turn; it’s sort of like a 90 degree turn by the Government, moving away from their four waters proposal, which is current law, to this new proposal, which apparently is put together as a result of listening to the objections that so many local bodies, who are responsible for water at the moment, have made. Well, the question is: why not hear what they think of the new proposal? Why not give them time to be able to come to the Governance and Administration Committee and make those recommendations to the select committee on this particular bill? I think it’s quite simple: the desire to be demonstrating any degree of a democratic approach to such a large shift, if you like, in the way in which water services are delivered is going to be denied to them because they may come back and say, “We don’t like this proposal either.”, and I think that highly likely.

What we have here is a complete muddle, and I think Parliament has a right to try and get it as straightened out as it possibly can—that is the select committee process. It’s what it’s supposed to be there for; it’s why there is a minimum of four months and two days on most bills, with the general proposition being that it should be six months. To cut it down to just under a month seems to me quite unreasonable and unfair. So Mr Watts has come up with, I think, a very reasonable suggestion that the bill report back get delayed until 19 November, meaning that it would be up to a new Parliament—who, frankly, would have to deliver on the aspects of the bill—to make a decision about how that report from a select committee is received. I think it’s worth noting, too, that this Parliament is going to go into election recess. It will be going into that period of about six or seven weeks—before the election—round about the end of August, so even the modest proposal to push it out by a month to 19 November really is only going to make a couple of months’ difference to it. I don’t see why the Parliament would be so keen to vote for a shortened period on something that has been so very, very controversial.

The motion moved by Mr Watts has our support, and I would hope that the rest of the Parliament can offer similar support for the reasons outlined in what I’ve just said.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to make clear the reasons why this truncated select committee process is sought by the Minister. First of all, these are not wholesale changes. It’s a very similar framework, with some relatively minor adjustments, including to the number of entities and some representative body matters. There is a need to get on with this. We want to see this implemented, and it’s absolutely necessary that the local bodies understand exactly what the rules are as they transition and the new entities are stood up. The Minister in this case, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, has very widely and in an exemplary manner consulted on the proposals, and, therefore, the select committee process which is proposed is more than satisfactory to address the issues that will be before the committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT stands in support of Simon Watts’ amendment to the motion that has been put, extending the report-back date from 27 July to 19 November. When we look at the days between now and 27 July, it’s actually 34 days. I do dispute what the honourable member from Labour, Dr Duncan Webb, has just said to us: that it’s a minor adjustment to the number of entities. Actually, going from four to 10 is not minor. When we’re looking at assets that belong to the people of New Zealand, one would think that they actually deserve the time to be heard. I believe, as I presume my ACT colleagues will as well, as National have, that that is not sufficient time. We are having a number of bills come through the House that have been truncated, and this is another one. Because we are talking about issues that belong to the people, they deserve to have that full time.

It is confusing, after all. We now have three bills going through the House, and if it’s confusing for those in the House, it’s got to be doubly confusing for those at home who do not understand what is going on. Having a continuation of bills going through the House with shortened periods of debate time and submission time and hearing time for those people is unethical in some respects, because we’re not allowing those people to have a voice. We really need to have true public consultation when we’re looking at confiscating public assets.

We are looking to implement this within two years, so to actually make this bill go through in a quicker time does not make sense, as one of my colleagues has said before. By moving it out to 19 November, we can get through the election, we still have the bill sitting on the Order Paper, and we can still work through the process while paying respect to the people of New Zealand who will look to have their assets being seized.

So it’s a quick call from me, but I do want to say that, on behalf of the ACT Party, we do appreciate the initiative of our colleague Simon Watts and the National Party. We do get in behind and fully support them and believe that this is something that the people of New Zealand would also expect from the parliamentarians that are representing them, and that is the ability for all of their voices to be heard in a reasonable time, in a reasonable way, and in front of the proper select committee to deal with it. ACT does support the amended motion that has gone through, and we hope that other parties will stand in support as well. Thank you.

Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 June 2023.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.