Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill

I move, That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be now read a third time.

This bill delivers on our Government’s commitment to the Local Water Done Well policy. Our goal is straightforward: to ensure high-quality, locally managed water services and to improve infrastructure that supports housing growth. We’re working closely with local government to make this happen. Local Water Done Well empowers councils to develop financially sustainable solutions to the longstanding water infrastructure challenges affecting many communities.

The previous Government’s approach—an unpopular, mega-bureaucratic, co-governed model—was costly and overwhelmingly rejected by voters at the last election. Earlier this year, we put an end to those divisive reforms and returned water services to local communities and to council control. That was the first step in the Local Water Done Well policy reform process.

This bill lays the foundations for our new approach to managing and regulating water services. Under this bill, councils stay in control. They will determine their preferred delivery arrangements, starting with the development of water service delivery plans within 12 months of this bill’s enactment. These plans will show how councils will deliver drinking-water, waste-water, and stormwater services in a financially sustainable way to meet regulatory standards.

Local decision-making is a key element to this bill. We understand that for some councils, the best outcomes will come from collaboration. This bill allows councils to submit joint water service delivery plans, detailing how they will work together to provide water services more efficiently and cost-effectively.

It also includes provisions for councils that need support. This bill also allows me to appoint a Crown facilitator to help councils prepare their plans or a Crown water services specialist to do it on their behalf. Councils can also request this assistance. Crucial information from these plans will be shared with the Commerce Commission as it develops a full economic regulation regime. This includes asset conditions, revenue and expenditure projections, and details on capital and borrowing. This bill also provides for some councils to be subject to an early form of information disclosure by the Commerce Commission, building on the data collected through these plans. This is particularly important for councils’ more advanced practices or those ready for a faster track towards detailed oversight.

For councils ready to transform their water services now, this bill provides an optional, streamlined consultation and decision-making process. This will make it easier for these councils that want to establish, join, or alter a water services council-controlled organisation or joint local government arrangement as currently provided for under the Local Government Act. This streamlined process allows them to move quickly while still ensuring community input.

One of the Government’s election promises was to provide a financially sustainable model for Auckland, and I’m pleased to say this bill also delivers on this promise. We’ve worked with Auckland Council to implement a model that gives Watercare financial independence, while allowing the council to retain complete ownership. This model also reduces the projected water bill increases for Aucklanders from 25.8 percent this year down to just 7.2 percent and, crucially, allows for Watercare to continue with their capital programme of investing in capital infrastructure to clean up our harbours through the Central Interceptor project.

Finally, this bill aims to reduce cost pressures across the sector through changes to the Water Services Act. These changes mean that the water services authority Taumata Arowai will no longer have to consider the hierarchy of obligations under Te Mana o te Wai and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management when setting waste-water standards, addressing concerns about potential cost implications. While this is an interim measure, it provides greater certainty for those involved in infrastructure development, helping to reduce the costs of future investment in waste-water infrastructure. We’ll continue to work on replacing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management to rebalance Te Mana o te Wai and better reflect the interests of all water users.

We’ve heard councils’ call for local control and flexibility in their delivery of water infrastructure, and with this bill we answer that call, providing councils with the options and tools they need to make decisions that benefit their communities. It’s clear that spending $1.25 billion on setting up new water service entities wasn’t necessary, as the last Government was proposing—$1.25 billion that they spent. New Zealanders deserve better water services, and Local Water Done Well is our plan to deliver that change. The previous Government’s one-size-fits-all approach wasn’t the right answer for local councils. Our plan recognises that local leadership and decision-making are critical to enhancing water services, supported by central government’s role in ensuring robust water-quality standards and better access to long-term funding for critical infrastructure. I am confident that we are giving local communities the flexibility and the tools needed to deliver water services effectively.

One of the cornerstone achievements of our Local Water Done Well policy is the innovative financing arrangements made possible by the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA). We recognise that many councils face significant financial constraints in meeting the demands of upgrading and maintaining their water infrastructure. Better access to LGFA financing helps solve this, empowering councils with the financial flexibility they need, while ensuring ratepayers are not overburdened by unnecessary costs. Through this partnership, council-controlled water organisations that are financially supported by their parent council or councils can access financing equivalent to 500 percent of their revenues, backed by the LGFA’s AAA credit rating. This means improved access to finance for council-controlled water services, which would otherwise be constrained by their parent council’s level of borrowing. It also secures funding the investment in water infrastructure at much lower interest rates than would have been possible under Labour’s model. This financing is available now, and I think it’s really, really important to highlight this.

This deal which has been done with the Local Government Funding Agency changes the game when it comes to councils investing in water services. Under the last Government’s approach, the entities they were putting up would’ve been able to only borrow up to 350 percent, for most of them except for Entity A—up to 350 percent against their revenues. Under this financing, they can borrow up to 500 percent against their revenues, and because of the arrangement through the LGFA, LGFA is able to provide the lowest cost financing to councils through its AAA credit rating—the lowest cost financing to councils.

Members opposite will still be hammering on about how their three waters co-governed, mega-entity proposal apparently was going to be cheaper. Well, that’s a figment of their imagination—a complete figment of their imaginations. Firstly, those entities would’ve been lumped with $1 billion of establishment costs over and above the $1.25 billion—

Hon Scott Simpson: How much?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: $1 billion of establishment costs. Secondly, they wouldn’t have been able to—for most of those entities—achieve a 500 percent debt-to-revenue ratio. That wasn’t going to be available to them. And, thirdly, they would not have received the financing through the LGFA and the AAA credit rating, which meant that they would not be getting and would not be accessing the lowest cost financing available to local government.

What this Government has done through Local Water Done Well has ensured that councils have the framework, the tools, and the financing to be able to enable them, working with their local communities, to be able to invest in the water infrastructure that they need to invest in. This Government has done that in as simple a time as nine months. We didn’t spend hundreds of millions on consultants. We didn’t need an army of consultants to do this. We just needed to have clear direction, look at the innovation that came through the LGFA, make decisions, and get on with it. That’s what this Government has done, and because of that we’re on the cusp of a new and improved delivery system for local government.

My message to local government is: thank you for calling for this change. Thank you for the mayors who stood up and opposed the last Government’s divisive reforms. Thank you for supporting us through this process, and we look forward to seeing the work that you do, collaborating with your communities, taking advantage of this new financing so that you can deliver the infrastructure that your community desperately needs, the improved water infrastructure, the improved quality, and investment in the growth that is needed in your community. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is the motion be agreed.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The problem with that speech by the Hon Simeon Brown is that I just don’t believe him—and there are many New Zealanders around who don’t either—because I find the Minister to be about as disingenuous as you can get. Here he is standing in the House making all sorts of promises to the country, as he has done throughout the campaign, but what is in the bill doesn’t match what he is saying. There were a lot of claims made tonight where, if people were to take the Minister at what he was saying, they would expect rates would not continue to go up. But he failed short of making that promise, because he knows, in his heart of hearts, that rates will continue to go up, because the advice that he has received is that this approach by this Government will still result in rates increasing. And there’s a number of reasons why I find his claims to be disingenuous.

The workings that they are going on are based on a false assumption that the level of expenditure that is required over the next 30 years is less than half what was claimed previously. Now, we know, through peer-reviewed assessment that was derived from councils’ own numbers, that there needs to be up to $185 billion spent over the next 30 years. The Minister claims that it is less than half of that, not by looking at councils’ own numbers and projections over 30 years but by looking at councils’ projections from their long-term plans. That is not being upfront with New Zealand, because he knows that councils won’t reflect 30 years’ worth of work in their long-term plans, because it’s only 10 years out. Then there will be, through the process that councils have had to go through over the last wee while, a number of large-scale projects that won’t be reflected in those 10 years. But he stood up and he told the country that this is affordable for councils.

New Zealanders are in a situation where the Minister is making a claim and we’re making a claim, so why don’t they listen to neither of us and listen to the credit rating agencies instead? Ultimately, it’s the credit rating agencies that determine the cost of borrowing. Borrowing is the reality when it comes to this water infrastructure. We cannot escape that fact. Regardless of how much needs to be spent, it needs to be borrowed. When the Minister stands up and says that it is a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the expenditure and the credit rating agency turns around and says, “We don’t believe you.”, nor should New Zealanders. We certainly don’t. I don’t think he’s being upfront. What he’s doing is finding a political solution to a massive issue facing this country, an issue that hits every New Zealander, whether they own their home or whether they rent. Rates determine the costs that hit their household. I think rates are going to be the biggest issue facing households in this country over the next wee while, and this bill isn’t going to help at all.

They stand up here in this House and say, “We are helping councils.” when they know, from their own advice, that they’re not. On the back of dismissing the recommendations that came from the Future for Local Government Review, calling it woke nonsense—despite the fact that the recommendations had alternatives for councils, had some tools and levers that they could pull so that they didn’t have to rely on rates—they’ve dismissed it. The only option they’ve got is rates, and they have the gall, after doing those two things, to turn around and stand up in front of councils and lecture them in a patronising, cynical, and arrogant way and tell them it’s their fault.

Again, that’s political. That is a political calculation, because they know they’ve stuffed up. They know that they set the rules within which councils operate, and they know that they have now made sure that councils have no option but to continue to increase rates and they don’t want to cop it in two years’ time at the next election. So they are bending over backwards to make sure that the inevitable fury that comes from ongoing rates increases goes towards mayors and councillors instead of them. Well, my message to ratepayers is that it’s actually not your mayors’ and councillors’ fault. These guys are trying to spin it as if it is, but it’s their fault. The next time they get a bill and they are surprised by the rates increase, remember this: the Government had an opportunity to help councils out and they blew it. They blew it for political reasons, and now they tie their legs together and turn around and criticise them for not being able to walk.

Now, I could give them a week, an entire sitting week, and ask them to come up with all the lists of what they call wasteful spending, and it could be as long as you like. But it’s not even going to scratch the surface. When over 80 percent of councils’ expenditure is on water and on roads and all they want councils to focus on is roads, water, and picking up rubbish—that was the Minister’s response in question time today—even if councils got rid of all the libraries and all the pools and all the sports grounds and didn’t do up the local footpaths and didn’t do up the local town centres, rates would still go up. If they were being upfront with New Zealand, they would declare that, but they’re not. That is why I believe the Minister is being disingenuous. They know the system is stuffed, and they’re refusing to do something about it.

The credit rating agencies, the ones that actually determine what is and is not affordable, have said this will not work. They’re going ahead with it anyway. They are working on the basis of a level of expenditure which dismisses 20 years’ expenditure, because, if they actually were upfront and looked at the 30-year projection of up to $185 billion that came from the councils’ own figures themselves, this plan wouldn’t work. They’ve done some jiggery-pokery and they’ve made it look like it’s going to add up, but it’s not, and, at the end of the day, who’s going to suffer? It’s going to be ratepayers. It’s also going to be good and hard-working mayors and councillors. If the Minister actually sat down with them in their council chambers and talked to them during the long-term plan process, just like I would, he would know the angst that they have gone through to try and keep rates low. But they’ve got no choice.

Now, if you look at South Wairarapa as an example, they have had rates increases of 20 percent in the last two years, and they still don’t have the money to upgrade their roads; they still don’t have the money to upgrade their water system. Now, South Wairarapa are in a council-controlled organisation—the thing this bill does—but they still don’t have the money. They have stopped developments in Greytown and Martinborough—no more new builds. That’s it—none. The local tradies are having to leave the region to get work. The local Mitre 10 has really been hit, because, if there are no builds, no one is coming in to buy materials. Why? Because they cannot afford to upgrade their waste-water systems. Now, they’ve tried. They thought entering into Wellington Water was the solution, but then it didn’t work out, did it? It didn’t work out, because it doesn’t add up, because what the Minister is promising also doesn’t add up.

Today is actually a sad day. It’s a sad day when a Minister stands up and says something that he knows in his heart of hearts won’t eventuate. I think that’s a bit of a disgrace, and yet he carries on. He knows the numbers don’t add up, because the very advice that his own officials and own department have given him says so. They fiddled it. They fiddled with it to make it look feasible, and they’ve run with it. In some communities, they have already put rates up because they got rid of the affordable water reform. The councils have said so themselves—literally writing to their ratepayers and saying, “Sorry, it was going to be this amount; now it’s this amount, because these guys got rid of the affordable water reform.”

This bill does nothing for the likes of the Tararua District. They’ve got around 10,000 ratepaying units and the fourth-largest roading network in the country. They need to find $600 million over the next 30 years—that’s from their own figures; the figures the Minister called “dodgy”. That’s their own figures. They cannot afford it. They can’t afford it by themselves, and even if they joined up with, say, two or three councils around them, they couldn’t afford it either. If you were a mayor or a councillor in a surrounding district, why would you voluntarily join up with them? I know they’re entering into this process in good faith, because councils do that, but, at the end of the day, when they look at the numbers, why would they do that? I feel sorry for the mayor and councillors in the Tararua District, because this is a problem not of their making but it’s up to them to fix, and the Government is not helping them.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I have to agree with my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty: it is a sad day, today. I want to acknowledge that we have got to today from a lot of unfortunate political failure and system failure. It’s created these longstanding issues that will worsen as climate change and extreme weather events take hold, and it’s putting our ageing infrastructure under increasing pressure. We know that the financial burden of all of this is in the hundreds of billions, so it’s no small thing. I have to reflect that I’m disappointed that this, ultimately, is a bill of missed opportunities—and I have to agree with my colleague across the House on that. We know, to solve these challenges, that whatever the model for reform is, it needs to be connecting our councils with communities. It needs to be taking a longer-term view. It needs to be incorporating mandatory considerations like climate change and needs to get out of this very siloed thinking where we’re lumping the blame and the responsibility on councils and ratepayers, who simply cannot meet that challenge alone. We are needing to be part of that, and we’ve missed that opportunity with this bill.

The first opportunity that I want to reflect on was how truncated the actual process was in the consultation—if you can call it a consultation—on this bill. It was hugely limited, to the extent that not all councils even got to submit on this bill and actually have their say. That is a huge, missed opportunity for actually getting to a place where we can address these very serious issues.

I want to start, as well—this is not about only our missed opportunity to address our infrastructure deficit, but it’s a missed opportunity to do so in a way that is actually comprehensive and fit for purpose for Aotearoa. I want to pick up on that specifically because it is a missed opportunity for co-governance. Some might call it co-governance, others might more accurately call it governance, and this is in upholding the rights of iwi and hapū in their exercise of rangatiratanga over water. It’s completely missing from the bill. The Pou Taiao of Iwi Chairs Forum put it really succinctly when they said, “The bill’s proposals lack any acknowledgment of the Government’s Te Tiriti obligations to iwi and hapū, and there is no reference at all to iwi and hapū participation in the delivery and decision making in respect of the mechanisms proposed.” Now, for this land and this place, for our water here, that is a glaring oversight, and it’s something that I’m hoping that this Government will take note of in the next bill, which becomes more substantially about the guts of how this new reform system will work.

I wanted to pick up, particularly, as well, on the missed opportunity to prioritise the health of our people and the health of our water. It was really disappointing hearing the Minister of Local Government talk about the positive nature of getting rid of Te Mana o te Wai considerations when setting waste-water standards through Te Mana o te Wai. We find this, as the Green Party, to be completely inappropriate, to be really short-sighted, and introducing considerable complexity into this water system that we have, where Te Mana o te Wai, as was pointed out really clearly by a number of submitters, was designed as a cohesive whole. It has a number of elements, and to pick out just one, in Taumata Arowai in the setting of these waste-water standards, is very short-sighted. Te Mana o te Wai was meant to be the driving force which actually improved the environmental outcomes and the health outcomes of our communities, and actually resulted in appropriate levels of investment that would further New Zealand in those outcomes. Without it, we risk locking in further underinvestment, an issue that we’ve already been party to, and we’ll end up with substandard infrastructure and decision making, which is, ultimately, detrimental to the health of our environment and our communities.

I really want to pick up on that; the public health implications which have had such a light shone on them during the submission process. I want to pick up, particularly, on the submission of the Public Health Communication Centre. They talked about the removing of the hierarchy of obligations from Taumata Arowai’s work meaning deprioritising the safety and quality of people’s drinking water and increasing the risk of illness from polluted drinking water. They talked about, given the human and financial costs of illness from water-borne disease and the typical high-cost effectiveness of reticulated and water sewage systems in urban settings—it holds that the safety of drinking water should have an extremely high priority. Now, that should not be news to anyone, yet we’re still making laws and legislation that make it necessary for health professionals to point that out to us.

What’s really disappointing, as well, with this bill is that it has failed to listen to the voices of councils when actually setting the criteria and the framework for which they make these decisions about whether to join joint water service delivery, to make the plans, and to make the joint entities.

We heard, overwhelmingly, from local councils and Local Government New Zealand and Taumata Arowai that they wanted 30-year minimum time frames for these water service development plans. They talked about how 10 years was completely insufficient when planning for resilient water infrastructure and water services, particularly with climate impacts. They asked for things like a much more pragmatic 24-month time frame, to actually allow them to have the conversations to make these water service delivery plans come into fruition and have the time to consult with iwi Māori on that. They also asked for much better integration with their existing planning processes, their long-term plans, their future development strategies, and their infrastructure strategies. The fact that, again, this Government has overlooked those time frames means that it is not going to be integrated. It risks councils that simply don’t have the resources available to them to meet these shorter-term time frames and will actually miss the boat altogether, and risks what we heard so often during the submissions as them then resulting in “orphan” councils that aren’t part of the bigger picture.

The last aspect I wanted to pick up on was the huge, missed opportunity in actually allowing regional council voices to be at the table when considering these joint water service delivery plans or entities. Now, yes, we add the Greater Wellington Regional Council, but we missed all the other regional councils. The reason why we needed to have them as part of the conversation is we need to get beyond this “What’s in it for me?” kind of thinking, where we’re taking these arbitrarily defined boundaries or areas. We know that our drinking-water aquafers cross city and district boundaries. We know our waste water and stormwater flow across the landscape into our streams and our rivers. It, ultimately, all ends up in our shared ocean. We need a greater, bigger picture to this, and the voices of individual councils considering these things alone is not going to get us there. We actually need that broader view.

I would really encourage the Government to consider all of these things as they go into the formation of the following bill to come, because, unless we are addressing these problems at scale, the solutions will, ultimately, be patchy, they’ll be inadequate, they’ll be expensive, and detrimental to the health of our communities and our environment. This bill has been a huge, missed opportunity, and the Greens will not be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was rather interesting sitting here and listening to Kieran McAnulty, the former Minister of Local Government, make claims about rates going up. I think we know where they would have got the money from. It would have been from borrowing or it would have been another tax, and, really, it’s the same people paying at the end of the day. When you’re borrowing too much, you get inflation, and when you’re taxing too much, you scare people away and out of work. It leads to unproductivity, and it means less is getting done with more.

Today, I’m proud to speak in this final reading of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. We listened to Kiwis. We did the hard work of restoring local ownership and control of water services as part of the Government’s 100-day plan, and I congratulate the current Government on having the courage to tackle this water infrastructure crisis head on. For too long, this country has faced infrastructure crises and we have dealt with that on a short term, Band-aid solution basis. This has been overwhelmingly rejected by New Zealand communities across the nation. The previous Government tried to address infrastructure issues in water services with misguided mega-entities and less local control, all while failing to deliver the solutions voters wanted.

The ACT Party is not here to impose top-down models on councils, who know their community, their waterways, and their waste-water systems better than a far-off bureaucrat, perhaps in Wellington or somewhere else, does. We are listening to voters and empowering them to find creative and innovative ways to meet local needs. I praise the mayors of New Zealand who saw through the affordable water reforms of the last Government.

This bill lays out the foundation for a much more financially viable and locally led future for water services in New Zealand. Councils will have the ability to choose their own financially sustainable delivery model that allows them to continue to support communities and improve their water delivery services. We want councils to be able to collaborate to address the different affordability issues across different regions, while maintaining their autonomy. Ultimately, we believe that councils who wish to move fast and adopt new delivery models should have a streamlined process to do so. We are removing unwanted barriers from councils which have got in the way, and we are allowing them to establish and amend new water services organisations.

Councils will be required to submit their water services delivery plans within 12 months of the bill becoming law. These plans will need to include a council’s approach to delivering drinking water, waste water, stormwater, and other water services. The plans need to show that the approach the council is taking will be financially sustainable and meets regulatory standards for quality.

Now, while Auckland is a key focus of this bill, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the small, rural areas, who have been anxious about the three waters changes taking power away from them. You and your local government understand what is needed, and we understand that councils need to retain their roles as strategic, democratically elected community leaders. Rural people have the right to be included in the reforms that would have pushed small councils to financial and resourcing limits. We’ve seen communities around the country concerned about how their small town would be impacted by the centralisation of these services. These communities are the backbone of New Zealand, and I’m proud to be able to reassure them that we will continue to fight for you.

The previous Government took away local control and wrapped it in bureaucracy and promises of co-governance. They hoped New Zealanders would look past this debacle.

This is a critical piece of legislation. It establishes the Local Water Done Well framework and the preliminary arrangements for the new water services system. We trust local councils to be able to make decisions based on the needs of their community, and to provide unique infrastructure solutions according to their needs and their concerns.

I come from a part of the country—Tauranga—which has been paying for its water for a long time. We have some high-class water infrastructure, and I hope to see the rest of the country follow suit on the path that Tauranga has done. ACT and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. During the committee of the whole House, we heard quite a bit about what isn’t in this bill, and from the Opposition saying, “You know, we want to know the answers to these things.” The clue is in the name. This is the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. It’s preliminary; there’s another one to come. We have a first stage. If we remind you, it was the repeal of the previous Government’s three waters proposal. Then there’s this stage and then there’s another one, which was quite clearly signalled in this bill and that will come at the end of this year.

I just wanted to briefly remind ourselves about that first stage—the repeal of the previous Government’s legislation—because I think in this debate there’s been a little bit of reinvention of history. We heard a bit of that reinvention of history from the Hon Kieran McAnulty before. There were less than 200 submissions on this bill. There were—how many was it?—86,000, 87,000.

Hon Scott Simpson: 87,000.

ANDY FOSTER: 87,000 on Labour’s legislation—and that wasn’t because people loved it; it was because people didn’t like it at all.

Look, it’s been portrayed as a solution that will fix everything overnight. But, look, the reality is, it wasn’t—and we’ve heard from the Hon Kieran McAnulty already that it’s in some way to blame for rates going up this year, and they’re going up across the board. But the reality is, that legislation wouldn’t have kicked in until—it wouldn’t be this year; it would be at least next year if not the year after. So that’s not true.

Also, we’ve had some people saying that somehow, magically, there was going to be this magic money tree. I know that some local body members think that this magic money tree somehow was going to pay for water. Well, it wasn’t. All that was going to happen is it was going to be transferred from ratepayers to water consumers, who, by and large, are the same people. That would have at least meant renters were paying directly for those services, potentially.

We’ve also heard from Kieran McAnulty that 80 percent of the rates goes on water and transport. I can tell you, certainly in the urban areas, it’s nowhere near that. I was looking for the rates bill to see if I could actually find the numbers, but I think it wouldn’t be a lot more than 50.

That legislation also appropriated council assets—appropriated them. They were assets built up by ratepayers over a century and a half, and, essentially, with no meaningful consultation. Remember it started out as something councils could opt into. Then it was like, “Uh, you’re going to have to opt out, because we’d really like you all to be in there.” And then it’s like, “You’re going in—you’re going in.” What sort of an approach is that? And some brave councils—and we’ve already had my friend Cameron Luxton saying, you know, brave mayors who took on the Government on this, and some of them took the Government to court, and the court said this was appropriation without compensation. In most cases, you would regard that as “theft”—is the word that you would use. And it’s another example that sometimes we need protection from our own Governments.

It also created the co-governance model. The co-governance model created two different classes of citizens. I know that some people have said that, as a result of that legislation and that other legislation, they did not even feel like they were New Zealanders anymore, and that is terrible. People have said that to me.

It also set up a complex form of governance that couldn’t possibly be effective and efficient. And it reached so far down into the small rural communities, and said, “Look, we want to appropriate, effectively, your small rural scheme.” Even, at one stage, two houses together was a scheme that they wanted to take over.

The other thing was it was always far, far too expensive. Right from the beginning, it looked like it was a gold-plated scheme. It was a gold-plated scheme. The numbers that have been talked about there—the $180 billion to $185 billion—I’m confident, as a result of the three stages that we are going through, that it will be well, well south of that; much, much cheaper to deliver the water services.

The other thing I wanted to comment on, because it came up also in the committee of the whole House, was the concern about the scrapping that’s been done of the Future for Local Government Review. Remember that? The Future for Local Government Review—let’s be very, very clear. That was an afterthought from the previous Government—an afterthought from the previous Government—only in response to local government, only because local government was saying, “Hey, you’re taking the water away. You’re taking away the Resource Management Act responsibility. So what are we going to be doing?” For many local authorities, that was an existential threat. Let’s just be clear about that. The other thing that review, of course, did is it focused only on what local government did. And some of us actually asked at the time, “Actually, could you focus on all forms of public service and say what fits where best? What’s best at central, regional, local, or even community level?”

What does this bill do? Well, it sorts out the borrowing issues for Watercare in Auckland. It leaves much more control with councils to sort out the structures, the financing, the service delivery, and some of the standards, and that matters. We’ve had some of our communities say that they, for example, don’t want chlorine in their water. Those kinds of things do matter to people. What stormwater levels do they want? Are we looking at a one-in-20-year flood, a one-in-100-year flood, a one-in-500-year flood? Those things matter. What about the receding water quality in waterways? Those things matter as well.

During the committee of the whole House, it also makes it easier to set up council-controlled organisations, alone or together. During the committee of the whole House, we heard concerns about that being only one consultation process rather than two. All I would say is, just make it authentic. That’s the key bit—to make it an authentic process—because I’ve seen a lot of tick-box consultation in the past and that does nothing for anybody. It doesn’t matter whether you do it once, twice, or 10 times; it is still a waste of time.

Then it requires a water service delivery plan. Have a look at what’s in the bill, because what is not to like about those things. A description of the current state of the water services network—sounds sensible. A description of the current levels of water services provided—that sounds very sensible as well. I’m not going to go through all of them. The financial projections, a description of the asset management approach—boy, that’s one I like; I like asset management. An explanation of how the revenue from and delivery of water services will be separated—all of those things are really, really important. It gives a lot more transparency than we’ve got at the moment, because, at the moment, we don’t have that level of transparency.

I want to come back to those water standards. The bill also includes—and we’ve already had that reference—the removing of Te Mana o te Wai. Now, Te Mana o te Wai sounded really, really good, because you want to look after the water. You want high-quality water. I had a regional councillor—not from this region, but a regional councillor—tell me the other day that they’re aiming for drinking-water quality standard in all of their rivers. I’d just like you to understand that thinking and whether that’s even possible—whether that’s even possible—and if you did, what you would have to do. That seemed just completely nuts. So there are concerns there.

The problem with Te Mana o te Wai is you’ve got three levels there, and what I’ve seen in resource management processes is that it’s only the top one that counts. For many decision makers, it’s only the top one that counts. And so the ones behind it—the health needs of people and then the ability of people and communities to provide for our social, economic, and cultural wellbeing—those things are subjugated to Te Mana o te Wai. That’s why that has come out.

Now, I’ve talked about asset management. Some people argue that councils haven’t done a good job of managing assets, and, actually, I think it’s fair—I think it’s fair. But I think that central government needs to be very careful that it is not in a glasshouse when it is throwing stones, because, for many parts of the central government asset portfolio, if you like, there is no asset management plan. And we lurch from crisis to crisis, saying, “Oh, goodness me! There’s a hospital that needs fixing because it’s got mould all over the place. There are schools which are falling down.”—you know, those things. And how do we do it? We cash fund them. I think central government should not be the pot calling the kettle black and needs to get its own house in order of that, and that’s something which we ought to be thinking very carefully about.

Now, if there was a real concern about underfunding—that thing of renewals versus depreciation—I ask a question: that was going on for years in every council around the country, and I know I was a part of a council that was doing it as well. I asked a question at the Governance and Administration Committee, saying to the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG), “Well, how many big red flags did you raise?” Crickets—not many. I would say to the OAG, in this process, and also to the Commerce Commission in this process, be waving big, big red flags, if you think there is a concern about the asset management, the way in which those important assets are being looked after.

Just to finish off with, this bill, to me, makes water delivery and investment much, much more transparent than it has ever been before, and that is a really good thing. It puts greater oversight there. The Commerce Commission will be involved, and I think that’s something that will be very interesting for councils to be exposed to. It allows the Government appointed assistance in developing water plans when necessary.

Can I just, actually, also add one other thing? We had a lot about the cost of delivery. Now, obviously, the changes around Te Mana o te Wai are going to make a difference there. The other one is the changes that are made outside of the water system to things like temporary traffic management. And you might go, “What the heck’s that going to do with it?” I’ve had chief executives of councils saying that 40 percent—I’ve said this in the House before—of the cost of every piece of work on the roads is traffic management. If you can halve that, you can go back and have a bit of a think about that and say, “Well, that’s going to really reduce the cost of delivering our water services.” Those things are really, really important.

So, look, I am really confident that the reforms through this bill and the forthcoming legislation will make the delivery of the three waters more reliable, more robust. It will still give us good quality systems. It will be done locally and it will be done for much, much less than the previous Government’s system. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a five-minute split call.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire e hāngai pū ana ki te wai Māori.

Hei tīmatanga kōrero māku, ko te kī atu ki tēnei Whare me te iwi katoa o Aotearoa, nō te Māori te wai. Nō te Māori te wai i te tīmatanga, ā, kāore e kore nō te Māori te wai hei te whakamutunga.

Nō reira ka tahuri au ki te reo tāhae whenua, tāhae wai, tāhae tamariki e mārama pū nei te katoa ki ēnei o ngā kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. I stand to give voice to the statements of the Māori Party for this particular bill that is directly related to fresh water.

For my opening comments, I would like to say to this House and all people of Aotearoa, water belongs to Māori. Water belonged to Māori in the beginning, and, without a doubt, water will belong to Māori at the end.

And so I will now turn to the language of land theft, water theft, child theft so that everyone will understand these statements.]

Let me just turn to English so everyone gets the rest of the speech. Māori have a very clear right to water. This bill doesn’t recognise it; many bills haven’t. There’ve been previous attempts to try and recognise Māori rights in water. Many people have spoken about it. I see it’s continuing to be debated in this House and new laws are being made as we speak, and these laws aim to take those rights away from Māori.

Let me just get way back to how Māori view the water. There’s a great saying that encapsulates this idea, and it comes from a place called Te Kāhui Maunga, all the way down the Whanganui to where it meets the sea. The saying goes, “mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au”. [from the Mountain Clan to the sea, I am the river, the river is me”.]

Loosely translated, it means: from the gathering of mountains, all the way down to the lapping of the ocean, I am the river and the river is me. It’s a famous quote from Whanganui. It encapsulates not only Māori rights to water but the Māori ethos and thinking and philosophy around water, which is an idea called mauri ora, and it’s what Te Mana o te Wai, te Taumata Arowai, Te Tai Kaha, and many other initiatives that have aimed to preserve the quality of our water have been based on.

But, here we go, in this House, we’ll just forget all of that stuff and we’ll worry about legislation that gets water from one place to another, and see some crowd control it, and some other crowd not. There are a couple of examples that I would like—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That’s good, Mr Ferris, because let’s concentrate on the bill, now—that’s some good context.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: I’m completely talking about the bill, as far as I’m concerned. There are two parts to the bill—

Hon Simon Watts: It’s the third reading, mate.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, OK—OK. Kia ora. Well, back to the conversation. Māori rights continue to be stripped out, and the loss of Te Mana o te Wai, Te Tai Kaha, and te Taumata Arowai are a continuation of that. Whilst the discussion may be around local ownership and infrastructure and how that gets paid for at the end of the day—I just reflect on the submissions that we heard through the Māori wards legislation, whether they stay or not.

The resounding support from the local mayors and CEOs of the country, who actually prefer to have Māori at the table because—āe, āe. Māori are a long-term financial partner in the local regions of this country. And when it comes to delivery of water and, when we get down to it, the fight for who owns water, they would be better off having those Māori around their tables instead of talking to them across the courtroom. Many of them talked about that, and the long-term view is that Māori assets, Māori capital, and Māori people are more committed to their regions and more likely to leave their investments in those regions, which could be a helpful thing when you think about paying for long-term water solutions. But let’s not worry about that. So where to go—where to go?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): To the bill—to the bill.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: You know, water seems to—the bill. Oh yeah, I’m still talking about the bill. I’m still talking about the bill.

Steve Abel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. A large part of the bill is explicitly to do with Te Mana o Te Wai and to ensure there is no co-governance of our water system—it’s getting rid of the three waters legislation. I believe the speaker is speaking directly to the bill, in the subject matter, and I take issue with you suggesting that he is not speaking to the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sit down, Mr Abel. That is a decision for the Chair. Carry on.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Happy to continue.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Restart the clock from when the point of order was taken, please.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Kia ora. Kia ora tātou. Kia ora, kia ora tātou. Ka hoki nei ki ngā kōrero. Mēnā kua meinga ēnei kōrero katoa ki te reo Māori, kua kore tētahi e whakauru i ōna whakaaro ki ēnei kōrero, but ka hoki au ki te reo Pākehā. 

[Thank you, hello to everyone. I will resume my speech. If all of these comments were made in the Māori language, no one would interject their opinions into these comments, but I will return to English.] 

Context is key, and, without a doubt, getting Māori concepts across in this House is quite a challenge when this House expects all of the conversation to be conducted down one lane. Well, there’s two lanes in this House, but the Māori lane is often just, you know, never given its rightful place. But I will persist; we’ll persist with that.

So let me get back to the bill and its aspiration to deliver good quality drinking water. And we all know that this comes down to a poor water event that happened in Havelock North a little while ago. But, at the same time—at the same time—there were kuia in places like Pānguru—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to speak to the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill at its third reading. This is the bumper sticker of this Government. It’s a bumper-sticker law that they speak so much about, and it involves kicking the can of contaminated drinking water, broken old pipes, and sewage on beaches down the road.

It is my prediction that there will be two obvious consequences from this legislation. Your drinking water will become lower quality—this is the members’, not yours personally, Mr Speaker, but yours too, possibly. The public’s water will become lower quality. Rivers will become more polluted and sewage will keep contaminating our oceans and our beaches. That is the first thing that is likely to happen as a consequence of this legislation.

The alternative to that is that conscientious councils will invest to fix the water infrastructure that is so desperately lacking in investment, and the rates will go up, as my other colleague on this side of the House, Kieran McAnulty, pointed out. The rates will go up, and those councils who’ve done the right thing will be punished by their electorate and blamed for the failure of central government to take responsibility for fixing the long-term infrastructure of our water. And that silly slogan, “Stop three waters”—as if it’s a good idea to stop drinking water and stop waste water and stop stormwater, but that’s essentially what this bill will have some effect on doing. It will stop the proper investment in that fundamental infrastructure.

That slogan was closely associated with another slogan during the election campaign: “Stop co-governance”, which the previous speaker, Tākuta Ferris, was speaking to directly. That was the classic anti-iwi, anti-Māori, race-baiting, fear-mongering basis on which this Government won its way into Parliament, and it’s a scurrilous undermining of our fundamental obligations as a nation to uphold the rights of iwi and hapū to the exercise of their rangatiratanga, including in regard to fresh water.

Now, it is rare for there to be a visionary insight to come into the formulation of our legislation and our law, but one of those visionary insights was Te Mana o Te Wai. Te Mana o Te Wai is a concept from te ao Māori which grapples with how we approach the hierarchy of obligations in regard to water, and it recognises the primordial truth that water is the source of life. Water is where life began. I remember my colleague opposite, Ryan Hamilton, when I mentioned that I’d take it back to the beginning, and he said, “What, Genesis?”. I said, “Yes, let’s talk about Genesis, because you’ll remember in the second verse of Genesis that exquisite language about the spirit of God moving across the face of the deep.” Before even there was the creation of light, there was the interaction of the Creator with water. Life began in water—this is where science and religion agree. Life began in water.

It turns out that perhaps the most sensible way to deal with what we prioritise in water is to put the hierarchy of prioritising the health and the wellbeing of the water itself first. Out of that prioritisation of water itself, you will find also that drinking water will be better off. Then you will find also the other uses our society wants to make of water will be better met.

Te Mana o Te Wai has a primordial genius to it, and this Government doesn’t like anything that is wise or deep or thoughtful or has foresight that’s going to soothe the interests of the future. There is wisdom in it, and that’s the sort of thing that we would like to see in a legislative framework. You can, in a sense, judge a society by the way it treats its freshwater, and this Government is sending our freshwater into a worse place with this legislation, because it fails to actually take care of that fundamental necessity of life, not just for us as humans but life for all things—the thing where, indeed, life began.

We will be opposing this bill. We expect to see drinking water getting worse. As my colleague also pointed out, this whole concept of dealing with a new structure for water came out of the sickness and death that occurred in the Hawke’s Bay around water contamination. I expect, sadly, that over the coming years, as a result of this Government, we’re going to see more of that.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak on the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. The irony that has just gone before in the previous two speeches had to be something to behold. Actually, to the Māori Party speaker on Māori rights and relationships with water, every culture has had a relationship with water; it is not unique to anyone else. Actually, we’re a country of New Zealanders. It’s not a two-lane Parliament; it’s a multi-lane Parliament. It’s a 123-lane Parliament at the moment. We all have our rights and we have responsibilities when it comes to water and all things in New Zealand, and I think to say otherwise is to be actually quite one-track. I won’t go any further than that. Actually, I think it’s disrespectful to everyone else in this House.

On top of that, we had Lan Pham from the Green Party, for a start, who said we’ve got to get away from this “What’s in it for me?” mentality on these water services bills. Well, I’ll take the member back to August 2023 when the Green Party had voted against the first two readings and in the committee of the whole House stage on the previous Government’s three waters legislation. They said, “What’s in it for me?” When they got what they wanted, they voted for it. So I just remind you, be very careful what you say in this House.

Then we got quite back to Genesis with Steve Abel. I like that. That was a good analogy, Steve. I appreciate that, but I don’t agree with his conclusions, I’d have to say. Ultimately, this bill is about common sense. Actually, just to my right, the Hon Simon Watts here, the genesis of Local Water Done Well sits right there with that man. He came up with this great plan to bring good sense to this argument, to this actual issue, and do away with co-governance. Stop Three Waters was actually a gift to everyone against the Government. It was a real lightning rod for opposition to the Government. Why? Because people care deeply about things that they contributed to, they made. The local water assets were theirs and they were going to be taken away from them, and that’s why it was such a contentious issue. It was very simple at its base as to what drove that opposition.

I had people in my office really upset about this, who’ve never ever taken a position on anything political in their lives, but that was an absolute border line for them. The reason that the Government kept it going for, I do not know. Anything that starts out with a premise of centralising, I’m always deeply suspicious of. It usually ends up costing a lot more. It will be run a lot more poorly than it would be otherwise, and that’s what we saw. How could you possibly spend $1.2 billion on a policy, and that was all it was? I think it’s unbelievable, but they deserve a gold medal for bad work on that, and by a very large margin.

This brings control of local water back to locals. It allows for collaboration, and I’ve got five councils in my electorate, and I know they’re already actively talking about collaboration where it suits them, and that’s what it should be—up to them if they want to do it; others don’t.

I think last week really topped it all off: Local Government New Zealand having their great get-together in Wellington, all talking about how wonderful they are, and then the water pipes in Wellington burst right outside a very expensive “nice-to-have” where depreciation money that could and should have been spent on assets went to a “nice-to-have” edifice for the council rather than being spent on maintaining the pipes and the infrastructure. This policy will make sure that money that’s taken from those assets by way of use charges goes back to those assets and not to anything else. So with great pleasure, I commend this bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a call in this third reading. Much has been said. I think it’s pretty clear that Labour (a) opposes, and (b) why it is that we cannot support this bill. What we heard from the speaker that has just taken his seat, Stuart Smith, I think exemplifies so much that the Government has got wrong with this piece of legislation. We heard this great—I wouldn’t say great speech—we heard some words from the member that’s just taken his seat about how this represented giving back the power to locals and community decision making and doing away with centralisation.

I think if members actually read this bill—and something that has been traversed at every stage of this legislation—we can see that there is lots of mandatory consultation contained in this legislation, but none of it is directed at communities having a say in the development and the preparation of their local plans. There can be a whole lot of talk about localism, but when it comes to putting pen to paper and drafting legislation, what we see is a Government that will retain the whip hand when it comes to the preparation and delivery of these water plans. Ministers can appoint Crown facilitators to councils that don’t toe the line, and I think we need to be very clear on that: this is not doing what members taking calls are purporting to do.

We’ve also heard a great deal from the member that sat down about what happened at the local government conference where we saw the Prime Minister turn up and berate councils about only spending on nice-to-haves at a time when this Government is imposing a regime on to councils that will only cause rates to rise. I think that’s something that every New Zealander needs to understand: the fact that ratepayers are going to bear the burden of these reforms through their rates. When they see those rates rises, think about the fact that this is a Government that scrapped three waters.

What we have not heard from Ministers—and they’ve been pressed, but they have not been able to give an answer since the announcements were made—is there was no clear answer on what the credit rating agencies thought about the plan and whether there is enough balance sheet separation. So much of what is in this legislation comes down to that fundamental question: the $185 billion that is estimated that is required around the country to upgrade our waters infrastructure; the Ministers cannot give clear answers on whether or not the rating agencies see enough separation there in terms of their lending.

I’m only taking a short call here, but I do want to finish with: I think that the contribution that we heard from the member talking about co-governance and criticising the contribution another member has given in the House around that really shows the attitude of this Government. It fails to understand that in the course of delivering this, there has to be that fundamental Te Tiriti partnership. It is the basis of how we must approach so much of this and that we must do this in the spirit of partnership, not the kind of contribution we saw from the member Stuart Smith, who has just taken his seat. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Look, I rise in support of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill because this is a momentous day for water infrastructure in New Zealand. It took the last Government six years and $1.2 billion to come up with an undemocratic, highly controversial, co-governance, three waters structure for our water infrastructure in New Zealand, with nothing to show for it—just a whole lot of wasteful spending, centralisation, bureaucracy, and no practical solutions.

As the member on the other side of the House—Steve Abel—earlier pointed out about the slogan “Stop three waters”, which, yes, we saw all across the country for the last couple of years because people across the country didn’t agree with the undemocratic, co-governance model. It’s taken this Government just 10 months—just 10 months—to put a popular, democratic solution in place, and put water infrastructure in this country back into local ownership. Local democracy: a popular, popular policy.

Councils and people around the country are supportive of this local ownership and control, as we heard from many, many submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’d actually just like to congratulate a lot of those councils and mayors that came forth to support our Local Water Done Well.

Look, I am from Havelock North, where we saw the water crisis in 2016. So I would just like to acknowledge that, because it has been acknowledged here in the House tonight. I would just like to acknowledge the families and the people who were impacted, because lives were lost and thousands of people did get sick, including a few of my own family members back in 2016. Everybody in Hawke’s Bay knows somebody who was impacted by the Havelock North water crisis. Our whole community, literally, felt like we were being poisoned. For days we were drinking contaminated water and thousands did get sick. This was not OK. Our Hastings District Council was in charge of drinking water, but people died, and we did not have safe drinking water.

We know that we must do more to ensure that our water infrastructure delivers safe water across New Zealand, but centralising our water assets and putting it in undemocratic ownership is not the answer. We must keep it in local ownership and work harder across the country, as local councils, to ensure that we have safe drinking water. And working harder at councils to ensure we have safe drinking water is really important.

Look, I would just like to acknowledge our Hawke’s Bay councils, because in Hastings the council has spent over $100 million on a state-of-the-art water treatment facility. Waiaroha attracts thousands of people every year to come and have a look at how we treat water in Hastings. It is quite incredible and it is amazing. It’s actually the first of its kind in New Zealand—in the Southern Hemisphere, I understand. It actually was just recognised for an award recently in June where it gained national recognition. And the reason I talk about this is because this is a huge investment that has already been made in Hastings and in Hawke’s Bay.

I will just mention that our Hawke’s Bay councils actually were very, very supportive of our water done well policies, because they’ve expressed support for water infrastructure staying in local ownership and local control. I would just like to congratulate those Hawke’s Bay councils—the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, the Hastings District Council, the Wairoa District Council, and the Napier City Council—because they have all jointly got together, they’ve collaboratively put together a proposal in terms of how they can see water infrastructure working really well and being able to deliver it well for ratepayers across the Hawke’s Bay and East Coast area.

Councils need to get back to basics. We heard this very loud and clear—as we’ve already spoken about in the House tonight—from our Prime Minister last week, where he said, “We need our councils to get back to basics in New Zealand.” That is fixing the pipes, it’s filling in potholes, and it’s maintaining local assets effectively and efficiently. Nothing in life is free. You expect your rates to pay for this kind of stuff, but at the moment we are seeing a lot of pet projects, nice-to-haves, and a lot of spending—distractions and experiments that are plaguing council’s balance sheets across the country.

That’s why our Government, as we’ve already spoken about—[Interruption] No, I’m coming back to why this is very important for water infrastructure because water infrastructure, of course, is a number one priority for councils where they do need to get back to those basics. So some of those announcements last week included making changes to the Local Government Act to restore council’s focus on local services and infrastructure and investigating performance benchmarks—yes, performance benchmarks. That may be something that the other side of the House hasn’t heard much of or can relate to, because it should be about setting performance benchmarks and targets so we can deliver results and be outcome-driven and have practical solutions, which is what we’re very focused on, on this side of the House.

Ingrid Leary: Great slogans. What do they mean?

CATHERINE WEDD: And investigating options to limit councils from spending ratepayer’s money on pet projects and nice-to-haves. Getting away from that kind of ideology and reviewing the transparency and accountability, which is what we do on this side of the House, looking at transparency and accountability and democratic decision-making for our ratepayers and our taxpayers across this country.

We’re stopping wasteful spending. Shifting money from the back office to the front lines; setting clear delivery targets. Yes, we talk about delivery targets and expectations and prioritising what we do and letting Kiwis keep more of what they earn. These are all the types of things that get us back to basics, get us focusing on the core things that will actually make a difference in this country. That is why we have expressed that message to councils, like we have to our Government agencies as well, that we need to go line by line, stop the wasteful spending, remove the bureaucracy, focus on better customer service and delivering for our ratepayers, and end the projects that aren’t delivering value for money. Yes, value for money. Now there’s a slogan, to that member on the other side of the House. That’s what we need to be thinking about.

Actually, I was just at an event tonight, and I spoke to a councillor, actually, who came up to me and she said, “Oh, it was great what your Prime Minister delivered last week, talking about councils getting back to basics and measuring results.”, because she said, “Look, now we can sit around the council table, and we can say, ‘Look, that’s what the Government’s doing. That’s what they’re saying and that’s what we need to do.’ We need to focus on what really matters and delivering for our ratepayers.”

Coming back to our water infrastructure—because that is where councils need to be putting a lot of focus—it was great through the submission process because we did hear from a lot of councils across the country. Of course, some are very progressive in this space, where they’ve already got together and they’re collaboratively putting together plans, like I’ve already talked about with Hawke’s Bay, where they’ve got their Local Water Done Well plan. They’re already collaborating together to ensure that we can deliver better water infrastructure across Hawke’s Bay. Water is a big issue for Hawke’s Bay because, of course, we’re a growing region and we rely heavily on our water. Currently, we have seen the allocations across the Heretaunga Plains being significantly decreased and, of course, this has huge wider ramifications for our region in terms of being able to grow what we grow, but also drive more productivity.

Water is certainly an issue that is very front of mind for us all, and that is why our Local Water Done Well is going to deliver for New Zealand. It is the democratic localism that we need right now.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, we all know that there’s been a problem in New Zealand with investing in infrastructure, and we’ve had this for some time. It’s been particularly difficult for small councils who have had maybe a lot of growth, haven’t had the financial mechanisms to charge for that growth, and have ended up with pipes and treatment stations that need upgrading. We’ve heard that there was up to $185 billion of infrastructure needed for three waters around the country; that is a lot of infrastructure. This bill does nothing to fix that problem. It is “head in the sand” stuff.

This age-old problem is not dealt with. Instead, we heard from the Minister, during the committee stage, “Oh, what this bill does is that it’s bottom-up. Labour’s approach was top-down; this is bottom-up.” All this bill does is make councils do specified reports with a whole lot of requirements around consultation, around levies, and around penalties. That’s not solving any problems.

Then, we hear that, well, Auckland is being dealt with specifically. How does that help Northland? We know, of course, that the Northland councils have a lot of deficit in terms of their water infrastructure and might need the help of a larger organisation. Can they get it? Who knows.

Then we hear about Te Mana o te Wai. This was an interesting issue, because, of course, the clause that is being amended in the Water Services Act 2021 does not refer to the Resource Management Act or any policy direction under it that includes the national policy statement for freshwater around Te Mana o te Wai. There is, however, another section—section 14—about giving effect to Te Mana o te Wai, but that is not the section of the Act that is amended. There was no discussion over the placement of this provision around Te Mana o te Wai in the committee stage. What was interesting was comments made by the Minister for the Environment that why the Government hates Te Mana o te Wai so much and doesn’t want it to apply to this water legislation is because councils’ waste water might not ever be able to be discharged to water; it might always have to be discharged to land. That is not what is in the bill. That was not under discussion anywhere. If that is the issue, it could say that without having to do a “King Henry VIII” clause in relation to this reference to Te Mana o te Wai.

Why are there drinking-water standards in the first place? Well, I suppose, for human health. We’ve heard about what happened in Hawke’s Bay, and that’s why we had the water regulator set up, in response to that. Also, there is an issue when you have waste water or stormwater being discharged to our water bodies, to our rivers, to our oceans that there are environmental impacts there, as well, that affect our kai moana and it affects whether or not we can go swimming somewhere. It is important that these matters are addressed. This bill does nothing to help that either.

We’ve heard, as well, about the cost of borrowing; we heard that from the Hon Kieran McAnulty. This bill does nothing to make borrowing cheaper. Councils are left in the lurch by themselves having to update—and it’s needed to update—many pipes and water treatment stations. They’re going to have to borrow for this at expensive rates, and that is going to put up everybody’s rates. This Government chooses, as a central government, to borrow for tax cuts and, at the same time, will make councils borrow more for doing up our pipes, and it’s a disgrace.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Oh, it’s a shame that the Green Party member has just left, because I was inspired by his Genesis—oh, welcome back—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m glad the member didn’t mention anybody’s name, because he can’t talk about the absence of a member.

RYAN HAMILTON: That’s right. The Genesis that was mentioned made me inspired. I know we’re not talking about title and commencement, but I felt like saying, “Let there be light.” Local Water Done Well—it’s such a good name, it’s refreshing. Or perhaps we could call this “Part 2 of the Holy Water Trilogy”.

Another member mentioned earlier the appropriation without compensation. Obviously, this is very much compensating with appropriation, but it was interesting that three waters was nicknamed “Appropriation Without Compensation”. Perhaps it was a glass half empty? We could call it a glass half full, or perhaps two-thirds full, being that this is two-thirds of the way through this bill.

It’s interesting that just for a little bit of context, when we think back about three waters for some context, we were talking about entity A and entity B, which had 24 councils in it. I mentioned that Hamilton City Council had $2 billion worth of assets and another council had $50 million worth of assets—a 40 times - scale comparison—and yet they each had one vote. I don’t know quite where the equity fell into that piece of legislation. It was quite ironic.

The previous Government talked about harmonisation, and that was the way that they did it. They averaged out the cost across those that could and those that couldn’t.

The Local Government New Zealand submission was very interesting, and I looked at that. They called it geographic averaging. I don’t know whether we could call it that—local government socialism would be another way to look at it—but they called it geographic averaging. If I quote from their submission, they said, “Councils have expressed concern that geographic averaging of water services charges may create new inequities. For example, should residential consumers in a metropolitan area (who benefit from the cost efficiencies gained by operating at scale in a defined location) share in the … higher costs involved in delivering a similar level of service to rural and provincial residential customers?” Even they challenged that very thing.

Really, it doesn’t have to be that complex. It’s about simple things like being collaborative. If you need help, we can provide it. The Minister has kindly offered the Department of Internal Affairs’ assistance in guiding councils, should they require that. Be financially sustainable, further augmented by ring-fencing for greater transparency—and, again, the member that just spoke has left the room. They talked about how rates are going to go up and said that we don’t have a solution for it, and yet we’ve approved the model in Auckland, where they were proposing a 26 percent rates increase, and we’ve got it down to a 7 percent rates increase. What was the manipulation we used? It’s called debt-to-revenue ratio, and we’ve incorporated it in this new legislation. It’s a 500 percent debt-to-revenue ratio, which means—to her other point—you can borrow more over a greater period of time, which reflects the intergenerational asset value, and it’s shared over a greater period of time.

It’s not rocket science; it’s a bit like a mortgage. You take it out over a long period of time. Rather than trying to fit it into councils’ 10-year plans, we’d take it out over a 30-year plan, which is not too dissimilar to what we’re trying to do with infrastructure funding and financing to get infrastructure away in this country. It’s not rocket science, but we’re on to it.

Let’s talk about the Better Off funding. Another previous speaker that came and has now left the room—I don’t know where they’re all going. But Better Off funding: the previous Government said that no council would be worse off—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t keep referring to the people that are not here. There’s still plenty of people here. Carry on.

RYAN HAMILTON: They’re all leaving. They’re all leaving, and I’ve got something really special for them. The previous Government said that no council would be worse off—Better Off funding—but they didn’t constrain councils to spend it on water infrastructure. It was a slush fund and it went to all sorts of things, and you can have a look on the website and look at the Crown infrastructure’s deployment of that.

None the less, Madam Speaker, I want to end on a high because I’m quite inspired by this transitory bill. I’ve created a little poem, and I hope you’ll approve:

Stop, collaborate, and listen,

get it right so that your river glistens.

Three waters—does that ring a bell? Shiver!

Better now as Local Water Done Well.

The community spoke and flatly refused,

“There’s a better way for unwanted poos.”

Entity A and entity B,

Locals said, “Just leave it to me.”

It’s about infrastructure, compliance,

not pushing ahead in total defiance.

Localism—let communities choose.

The Government hears all your views.

So, Madam Speaker, now I say,

I commend this bill; it’s on its way.

I have to say that so much of what is said on the other side is full of sound, fury, and slogans but signifies nothing. The Government seems to think that body count matters—the number of people in the House—but what actually matters is serious contributions to the debate, and these have been serious contributions to the debate on this side of the House.

I want to pick up on two things that have been said by previous speakers. The first was by the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, when he opened and he said that the previous Government’s legislation had been deeply unpopular. I’ll tell you what will be unpopular, and that will be the rates bills that are going to start arriving in people’s letterboxes, with the dramatically increased rates in order to pay for water services infrastructure. That will be unpopular, and it will be caused by that Government. It is caused because they have totally underestimated the cost of water services infrastructure in this country. It will cost $185 billion over the next 30 years. When we were in Government, we actually had a plan to deal with that.

The speaker immediately prior to me, Ryan Hamilton, was talking about how the problem had been solved for Auckland Council by tweaking the debt ratio. That’s a Government that spends a lot of time telling us how bad debt is, how it’s appalling that we have Government debt, but suddenly it’s OK for local bodies to have a lot of debt? Let’s remind them of something: central government pays interest costs at a lower rate, because it typically has a higher credit rating. Local body governments do not enjoy the same credit ratings as central government. The costs of borrowing will be higher for local bodies. What this bill represents is central government shifting a cost that needs to be paid from central government to local government. And, in doing so, it is creating tremendous unfairness for the small councils, for the councils who will be left out in the cold, like Northland, like the Far North, like some of the areas of the country which simply do not have the rating base to pay for water services infrastructure. When the rates bills arrive in those letterboxes, they simply will not be able to pay, and that Government is abandoning them.

I am standing to support the third reading of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, and I am actually going to end it on a very positive and future-looking, forward-looking prospect note, because this is about stopping the wasteful spending. This is about stopping the $1.2 billion that the last Government spent—and guess what? The rates still went up. Water rates still went up. It didn’t fix anything. In fact, $1.2 billion didn’t even fix leaking pipes in our country.

What we will be doing is giving decision-making powers back to the local government, back to people, which is precisely how they voted in October. We are going to give the decision powers back to local government, back to people who know how things work on the ground. By unlocking this potential, by financially separating, for example—taking an example of Auckland City; most populated, the largest city in New Zealand—Watercare, it can actually take on additional finances to fund water infrastructure and unlock future capacity for other infrastructure.

I am so proud to be speaking on this bill as the last speaker and to actually end it on a positive, forward-looking—can’t wait to see this happening on the ground for New Zealanders, for Aucklanders, and for all of our ratepayers. I commend this bill to the House.