Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I present a legislative statement on the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangement) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 18 July 2024 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, and 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, and that the committee’s powers be extended under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to consider out-of-scope amendments set out on Amendment Paper 41, in the name of the Hon Simeon Brown.

I’m pleased to bring the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill to the House. This bill is a critical piece of legislation that makes up the second step of Local Water Done Well, which is our coalition Government’s plan for addressing New Zealand’s water infrastructure challenges. New Zealand’s longstanding water infrastructure challenges require locally led and financially sustainable solutions. Labour attempted to reform water services with their unpopular mega-entity, co-governed model, which cost taxpayers $1.25 billion and was overwhelmingly rejected by communities. In February this year, we completed the first step of Local Water Done Well and delivered on our election promise and the 100-day plan commitment to restore council ownership and control of water services by putting an end to Labour’s three waters.

The bill that I’m presenting today sets the foundation for future delivery and regulation of water services. It enables councils to self-determine their pathway to financially sustainable delivery models. We are not here to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on councils, which know their communities best. Their local decision-making is key to this bill. However, I expect councils will work collaboratively to address affordability challenges and achieve sustainable models for water services. Any councils who are wanting to move quickly to adopt a new delivery model can do so. They can establish or amend a water services council-controlled organisation with the help of the streamlined consultation and decision-making processes in this bill. These do not override the existing mechanisms in local government legislation but provide an easier pathway for councils to work together. We want to remove barriers to those who already know how they can move to better models, especially if it will ease future cost pressures for consumers.

A preliminary arrangement set out in this bill will require councils to prepare water services delivery plans within 12 months of enactment. Through these plans, councils will demonstrate that their approach to delivering drinking, waste, and stormwater services is financially sustainable and will meet regulatory standards for water and infrastructure quality. This will require the ring-fencing of funding so that sufficient revenues are allocated to maintain those assets and operations.

We’ve provided a practical approach for developing these plans. Councils are able to collaborate on water services delivery. If they decide to, they can jointly submit a plan. There is flexibility for councils in a joint plan to deliver their stormwater services individually or jointly with the other councils in the joint arrangement. These plans have a dual purpose. Not only will they provide transparency on the current state of council water services, infrastructure, and delivery; they will also provide assurance to communities as to how their council intends to deliver these future services.

I recognise that some councils may face challenges in developing these plans. That is why there will be check-in points on progress and technical assistance available for those who may be struggling. Through this bill, we are enabling the appointment of a Crown facilitator and Crown water service specialist, who may assist or prepare a plan on the council’s behalf. Specific information in the plans, including baseline information about council water services, operations, assets, revenue, and projected capital expenditure, will help the Commerce Commission develop a full economic regulatory regime for water services later this year. To assist with that work, the bill also provides for some councils to be subject to further information disclosure. This is intended for councils that have more advanced asset or financial management practices, or those that moved quickly to establish new water organisations and are ready for a faster track towards more detailed oversight.

Finally, this bill features legislative changes that will enable Auckland Council to implement its preferred approach for future water services delivery, with significant benefit for Aucklanders. Earlier this year, Watercare projected that there would be a 25.8 percent increase in water rates for their customers in July, but our Government was not going to let this happen. The 25.8 percent water rate hike would have piled costs on to Aucklanders already struggling with the prolonged cost of living crisis, increasing average annual household water rates by $348. The previous Government spent $1.2 billion on three waters and did not deliver a solution for Watercare. This Government spent less than half a million dollars and found a solution in six months. By financially separating Watercare from Auckland Council, Watercare can take on additional debt to fund their water infrastructure over a longer period of time. This will allow Watercare to limit this year’s water rate increases to a much more palatable 7.2 percent. Based on an evaluation by Standard & Poor’s, this will be achieved with no new constraints on Auckland Council’s borrowing capacity or credit rating. In fact, Auckland Council will be able to access even more funds to continue its investment in key projects, including improving transport infrastructure.

Members on the opposite side of the House, including the former Minister himself, claimed that three waters would have delivered lower rates rises than Local Water Done Well, but what they failed to own up to is the fact that three waters would have meant that Watercare would not be able to afford the infrastructure that Auckland needs, as rate rises were capped. Advice I’ve received shows that Labour’s three waters included very dubious quote assumptions. Labour’s plan did not add up, which is why our New Zealanders reject three waters. The reality is, nine of Labour’s 10 mega-entities had worse than investment-grade stand-alone credit ratings. They would have failed to access finance without Crown-backed support. Even “Entity A” needed a Crown-backed liquidity facility to lift it from BBB to AA, in an inconvenient truth for members on the opposite side of the House. While some say that Watercare could have been handed over to debtors in an effort to privatise, this is simply not true. Watercare is protected against privatisation through existing legislation. Labour’s attempt to force a one-size-fits-all approach to water service delivery would have meant Aucklanders could not afford the infrastructure they need.

This bill provides a statutory underpinning for Auckland’s new Local Water Done Well arrangement. It means Watercare, rather than Auckland Council, will have the legislative responsibility for delivering drinking and waste-water services to Aucklanders. A Crown monitor will be appointed to Watercare as an interim regulator to make sure Aucklanders pay fair prices for water services delivered to an acceptable quality. They will also ensure that Watercare is investing sufficiently in its infrastructure. This will be a temporary arrangement until the Commerce Commission establishes full economic regulation. I have worked alongside Auckland Council and Mayor Brown to prioritise local decision-makers in achieving this outcome. I’m pleased with the swift progress toward a sustainable model for water services in Auckland, achieved through the unanimous vote by the council. I thank the mayor and council for working with me to achieve this change. Labour said that our plan wouldn’t work, but the plan we’ve delivered for Auckland shows that it is possible for councils to implement their own preferred models for water services delivery.

I’m confident that we are giving local government the flexibility and the tools to choose the outcome of their water services delivery and bring benefits to their community—the Watercare model adopted by Auckland Council is evidence of that. However, our work is not yet complete. We have a lot of work to do to ensure we give certainty to all councils and communities across New Zealand. Local Water Done Well enhances local government’s delivery of water services by emphasising local government decision-making, robust water quality rules, and easier access to financing the long-term investment and critical infrastructure. We’re working at pace to provide details on the broader range of structural and financing tools which will be available to councils to ensure that they can access the long-term debt required by their water services. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It says a lot about this Government that they are rushing this bill through the House. The Minister who read the statement wasn’t even prepared for it and didn’t even have the time to change the language. Right throughout that, it was written for Simeon Brown. Where is Simeon Brown? It is a pattern from this Minister, and it is, I think, quite appropriate that he is not able to read it, because if this bill is the solution to the water issues this country is facing, this proves what we’ve been saying throughout—that this Government is throwing local councils and ratepayers out in the cold. Anything that is proposed in this bill can already happen. It is just simply able to happen quicker.

Ratepayers are facing astronomical rate rises across the country. If you talk to mayors, they will tell you that for some of them, up to 50 percent of those rate rises are down to the decisions of this Government. The decision to repeal water reform—advice received by the previous Government and the current Minister indicate would have saved ratepayers from unaffordable rate bills. That is exactly what they are going to face. Nothing in this bill will save councils from the reality that they are going to have to put rates up. You can tell that they know that that is the case when a Minister feels the need to try and pre-empt arguments in a first reading speech; you know that they don’t actually believe that this is going to do the trick.

Hon Matt Doocey: You can’t say that.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: They don’t. Deep down, they know. They promised New Zealanders that they would help. They also promised councils that they would help pay for it. Matt Doocey was one of the prime leaders in that regard. He stood in that seat right there and promised them, just like the former spokesperson went around and told mayors that a future National Government would help councils pay for their water. They broke that promise. And now, it doesn’t matter how many councils join together under a council-controlled organisation; there’s nothing in there that will save them from the reality.

There are already council-controlled organisations in this country. Parliament sits in a city that has one, and Wellington Water is stuffed because they cannot do what National told them they can do. The only place that would benefit from this is the unique situation in Auckland. No other council is in that position. No other council would be able—it doesn’t matter how many they join with—to get the scale and the financial separation to be able to achieve the cost savings that are required. One hundred and eighty-five billion dollars is what is required; the Government’s advice says so. Councils cannot do it by themselves. The only way in which to do that is to achieve balance sheet separation, and this bill does nothing to achieve that. So, there will be small rural councils, in particular, that have been hanging out and waiting and actually, quite reasonably, taking Ministers at their word. Well, they’ve been let down today. If this bill is supposed to save those councils, then they have no future other than to put rates up at a level that many can’t afford. I’m worried about those that live in rural areas, and I’m worried about those on fixed incomes. Those people are already facing double-digit rate rises—in some cases, beyond 20 percent and, in some cases, for the second and third year on the trot. It is inescapable unless the Government actually did something about it, and they haven’t.

This is actually a shame, because rates are one of the biggest issues facing this country at the moment. It is one of the largest drivers of inflation. The Government has a responsibility to help councils out, but all they have done is pushed it back to them. If you listen to the language of the Minister and the Prime Minister, they are setting up mayors and councils to take the blame. When asked about this in Whanganui, the Prime Minister said all councils need to do is stop doing dumb things. When asked about it, the Minister agreed with him. Everything they are doing is setting up councils to fail. I think it is a disgrace. They should do what they promised and actually help councils, not this. This is not going to work.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. You know, I think we can all agree—and it’s clear that the intention is there—that everyone has a right to and deserves access to clean, safe water. Unfortunately, we know that these past decisions of various Government inaction across various political stripes have meant that for many of our communities across Aotearoa, it’s not the case. We don’t have access to clean drinking water, and our waste water and stormwater are polluting our rivers and our beaches and the places that we really hold dear.

We know that all of these systems really need to be designed in a way that does not damage and degrade our environment—that is a bottom line. But, ideally, they would be managed in a way that is actually integrated with the environment in which the infrastructure actually sits, in a way that acknowledges who we are here in this country of Aotearoa, and in a way that upholds Te Mana o te Wai and recognises water as a taonga to iwi Māori and their rightful place in exercising rangatiratanga. And, unfortunately, that is not what this bill does. It’s precisely what is so glaringly missing.

We are really disappointed to not see any aspect of co-governance in this bill, because we know that for this country, that is what makes sense here. I was not only really disappointed, in particular, to see what the Government has done earlier in the week with their bill that means that councils, when they are consenting decisions, cannot uphold Te Mana o te Wai in the hierarchy of obligations that that includes, but I see in this amendment to this bill as well that they are proposing that Taumata Arowai or our key freshwater regulator can also not have regard to the hierarchy of obligations in their regulation of waste water and environmental performance standards. This is hugely disappointing because it’s basically crippling the very tools that we have to be able to push investment and push changes in infrastructure and the way that we manage all of this bad stuff that’s happening right now.

The legacy of our underinvestment in water infrastructure is significant, not just for our people but for the environment too. Unfortunately, this Government’s approach of putting these bills through under urgency is yet another missed opportunity, taking us further away from the stuff that we so desperately need, like community resilience and like protecting our environment, taking us further away from allowing Kiwis to access their most basic rights to safe, affordable, and reliable water. The Green Party are just dismayed to see this happening today.

I also wanted to point out—I’m noting that the Minister has suggested that this will go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We know that three waters reforms in the past and, now, the water services bills have been going to the Environment Committee, and as a member on that committee, I would just put in the plea to Government that that is a great place for these bills to go. We know that the implications for all of these measures have so many impacts for the environment, and it’s a really great place that the bill could go.

So, in summary, I’m really disappointed to see this going through under urgency. We know that we need progress in this space, but this bill, which completely disregards te iwi Māori and tangata whenua and their rights to co-governance of these precious taonga and water services, is an absolute disappointment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of this bill, which is further progressing the Government’s programme to get local water done well. It has to be said, since it was brought up, three waters, which was going to create 10 entities—well, I’m glad to see that’s over. As someone from the mighty Tauranga region, which has been paying for its water for some time and doing a good job of it—it just shows what can be done when a council is able to get its water under control and properly paid for. This new model is to be welcomed. I’m glad to see it. ACT supports this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker, in the last two bills we discussed, we heard a lot of what I think were crocodile tears from the other side of the House about the relationship between central government and local government. That pales into insignificance with the way in which the last Government approached water reform. Not only did it almost split Local Government New Zealand but you’ve actually got organisations which are now no longer part of Local Government New Zealand. We got 88,000 submissions on it, and what happened to those? By and large, they got ignored. So they were crocodile tears over the last couple of pieces of legislation.

This bill, the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, allows councils to decide their own model—allows councils to decide their own model. It allows them to work together if they want to do that. It allows council-controlled organisations—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How did the rates rises go in Wellington, Andy?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Tell us about Wellington Water, Andy!

ANDY FOSTER: —it could allow a number of different contracting entities, but what it does do—they’re a noisy rabble over there, aren’t they? What it does do is it sets out the expectations very, very clearly from what we expect. It talks about the quality of asset management. It talks about financial sustainability. It talks about all those very useful things.

The one thing I particularly wanted to talk about was asset management, because in this country, we are lousy at asset management, and central government is particularly bad. Local government isn’t great—local government isn’t great—but central government is abysmal. That is why I’ve said already in debate that we’ve got $1.5 billion in this Budget to help fix the poor asset management around our education infrastructure. But it’s not only there; it’s right across the board. We’ve had the debate just now about the amount of the deficit in waste management infrastructure. It is right across the board, and it is something that we need to do something about.

Kieran McAnulty said that there is a $185 billion bill sitting there. Now, what he didn’t say is that a fair bit of that is covered already by local government—a fair bit of that is covered already by local government. What he also didn’t say is that there are a lot of assumptions behind that. And one of the things, when we look in our Transport and Infrastructure Committee—and it’s great to follow after my good colleague Cameron Luxton—is that we know that there are huge opportunities for us to do infrastructure faster, cheaper, and better. If you go and talk to, as I have done, some of the local government operators and chief executives, what they will say is that up to 40 percent—40 percent—of the cost of working on the roads, and that includes utilities, is all the health and safety costs around that. If we can make a difference there, that $185 billion comes down a long, long way. And that is what we have got to do.

Labour has also talked a lot about the impact on rates. What they don’t do is tell you that, if it wasn’t the ratepayers who were going to pay—it wasn’t a magic money tree; it wasn’t the Government. There was a front-end bribe—there was a front-end bribe—but it wasn’t the Government. Who it was going to be is the water consumer. I don’t know about you, but I am a water consumer; I’m a ratepayer. It’s the same people. There is no magic money tree. Three waters, also, wouldn’t have kicked in for a couple of years, and, as I said, there is no magic money tree, and the cost would have been paid by the same people.

This is a bill about us working together—local government and central government—rather than the imposed model that we saw from the last Government. I commend this bill to the House.

Just outrageous—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Good—excellent. We’re just going to let the man start his speech before you pass comment on whatever it is he might be about to say.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is just outrageous. Andy Foster, former Mayor of Wellington, talks about water infrastructure—a city that is struggling at this very time—and he is supporting a bill that he knows will not save Wellington from its water infrastructure issues. He talks about the relationship with local government and Local Government New Zealand that he stayed with. So that is an absolute cop-out from the New Zealand First MP and, actually, the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. All I have seen from him is an inquiry, this term, into a pedestrian crossing in Auckland. It’s outrageous that that member can talk about the importance of infrastructure when, this week, he voted down, with Government members, my inquiry into Auckland Transport because of their dismal delivery for Aucklanders. He voted it down. And how dare he stand up today in this House and advocate for better water infrastructure when he knows that this city will not benefit under this deal.

I acknowledge water infrastructure challenges in Aotearoa New Zealand. I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for two years while we debated this out. You know what they will never say is actually one of the biggest challenges in this—yes, from the ACT Party too? It was co-governance. And when we come to submissions on this bill, I look forward to every iwi and every rōpū Māori that’s going to front up and challenge this Government on Māori representation when it comes to water, because they will argue and they will argue, and no doubt they will take this Government to court once again, because Māori representation in this country is important—

Hon Shane Jones: Where’s the pōti?

SHANAN HALBERT: —and they will front up, Matua Shane. They will front up to all of you and ensure that their voice is heard. Yesterday at Hui Taumata at Omāhu marae, thousands of Māori turned up in kotahitanga to talk about the tragic state of this Government and how poorly they are treating Māori. And I’ve said over and over again that this Government and their sentiments are anti-Māori in a country that is important, and actually, Māori want to be a part of this decision making.

Cameron Luxton: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order, Cameron Luxton. I think I know what you’re going to say, and I was within a hair’s breadth of making the same comment. Please bring your speech back at least around the bill, as opposed to as tangentially as you appear to have gone.

Hon Shane Jones: It’s a water bill.

SHANAN HALBERT: It is a water bill, and it does include the importance of iwi as a part of it and Māori representation in the decision making of our wai.

This Government is putting forward a bill that is not going to change outcomes for the majority of New Zealanders. When we talk about the cost to ratepayers, the cost to ratepayers is that the benefits to Aucklanders are actually worse under this Government in water rates than they were under Labour’s plan. I accept that it’s not easy. I accept that somebody has to pay. But Labour’s plan cost less to Aucklanders for their water to achieve the changes that were required.

This bill doesn’t even acknowledge Wellington, that Andy Foster’s talking about. When I met with Gisborne council a month ago, they were so concerned about this leaving them out to dry. Dana, you have to front up to your community to ensure you have the best outcome. And if you’re speaking on this today—

SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t.

SHANAN HALBERT: —you know this is not a deal for Gisborne.

SPEAKER: No, hang on, Mr Halbert. I’m not fronting up to anybody about water—I’m not a Minister. So just follow the rules of the House. If in a speech someone is referred to as “you” in so much as it’s not the first person, that’s acceptable under new rules, but not quite the way that you are addressing it there. And I’m probably taking up the time that someone was about to take up with a point of order on it just to move us on. My apologies for interrupting you, but please carry on.

SHANAN HALBERT: No, my apologies. I will ensure that when I question members in the House and ask them about how they’re going to represent their communities when it comes to important things like water infrastructure and how they pay rates in Whanganui—actually, this bill is not achieving better outcomes for their communities. It’s not making it more affordable for people to have good quality water.

I see the member for Tukituki over there, where all of this started. Our Government had to bail Havelock North out because people died from poor quality water. And the members across the other side of the House know that this is the bill that is not going to achieve a better outcome for their communities. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It seems to be a misapprehension across the other side of the House that one group of New Zealanders have a closer relationship to water than others. That is simply not true. This bill is a great bill, and I look forward to it coming to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. That is not a comment that I made in this House, and I would like an apology—[Interruption]

Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

No—everyone is going to go into this new concept of silence mode at the moment while we work this through. Firstly, in his speech—which I was listening to because I listen to them all—he did not refer personally to you. He spoke of others who have a view, and that’s not unreasonable in debate.

Shanan Halbert: As long as we’re clear. Thank you.

SPEAKER: I’m certainly clear, and that’s really all that matters. I call on Rachel Boyack—honourable Rachel Boyack.

Oh—thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a nice—

SPEAKER: No—apologies. Before we—no, we’ll start the clock again.

RACHEL BOYACK: Ha, ha! At least I wasn’t sitting in the front row today, Mr Speaker; thank you. This is a bill that is all about Auckland and says to the rest of the country, “Stuff you.”—not you, Mr Speaker; stuff the rest of us. The reason why I say that as a regional MP is that what the Government has done here is they have repealed the water legislation that went through this House under three different bills—the first two that went to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and the third that went to the Governance and Administration Committee—to ensure that the feedback that came from councils was heard. We came to a point where we did get to around 10 entities across the country that would be separated through balance sheet separation so that we can actually get the economies of scale needed to invest. That’s what I’m going to go into in my contribution today.

First of all, this bill focuses solely on Auckland—on Auckland, which has the Watercare model that already delivers water in a better way than any other territorial authority across New Zealand. That is fundamentally what the challenge is. I think it’s been quite interesting to hear the former Mayor of Wellington talk about how bad this is going to be, as colleagues have mentioned. When you look at what Wellington Water looks like right now, I would not want to be standing up and using that as my contribution on how things can be done well. What we can see from this bill is there is a focus on Auckland and there is absolutely no idea about how the Government is going to deliver better water infrastructure for the rest of New Zealand.

Firstly, what about Northland? Who is going to go into a collaboration with Northland? We know that Northland is one of the parts of the country that has the most deprived levels of poverty in the country, where there is a real challenge to invest, where we have a large rural area with a very low rating base. How are they going to invest? Yes, it was challenging for people to accept that Auckland and Northland would have to go together, but that is what needed to happen, because if we go into this parochial approach, we end up with a system that doesn’t deliver better, safer water for every New Zealander. So I ask the Government members: how are you going to support Northland to invest when you have ring-fenced Auckland all on its own?

We will see—when that legislation comes through the House; if it appears—about what is actually going to happen for the rest of the country. I can see everyone’s heads are down all of a sudden. There is nothing to heckle about here, because they know—they know—that this bill actually shafts Northland.

As a regional MP, I will be standing up for my region and all the other regions. And the other region to talk about is the West Coast. The West Coast has already started having conversations with parts of my area—it might be news to Stuart Smith—about how we and Te Tau Ihu can support the West Coast, because who here thinks that Canterbury’s going to go and jump into bed with the West Coast on water? There’s absolutely no chance. The West Coast is one of the largest rural areas. There are pipes everywhere, multiple treatment plants that need to be upgraded, and a very small number of people to pay for it. Now, without balance sheet separation, how do we do that? The advice from officials repeatedly, Mr Foster, has been that you must have balance sheet separation to be able to do the investment that you need to do.

Andy Foster: You’ve got to have a revenue stream that makes it work.

RACHEL BOYACK: And so—absolutely, and I’ll just quote back at you: “There’s no magic money tree. There is no magic money tree under this bill—there is no magic money tree under this bill.” What our reform did was allow balance sheet separation so that we could get the investment needed. One of the things we see is that even Auckland’s going to be worse off. They are facing a 26 percent increase. With the deal that’s been struck, that goes down to 7 percent, but it would only have been 2 percent—2 percent—under Labour’s plan.

So this is a bill that is bad for Auckland, but it’s even worse for the rest of New Zealand. It is terrible for rural and regional New Zealand, and we will see the results of that in years to come. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Look, I support this bill because Hawke’s Bay, where I’m from, has a plan. The Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, Central Hawke’s Bay Council, and Wairoa District Council have a plan and are very supportive of Local Water Done Well. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House. It is about local democracy.

Talofa, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this very, very important matter, local government water services. From this side of the House, Labour opposes this bill because, under the last Government, we had a solution. My colleagues have informed and reminded that side of the House why the plan and the solution that we offered with balance sheet separation was the plan—it would provide good water services not just for Aucklanders but for New Zealanders.

Our previous spokesperson traversed the country and was able to get the evidence to provide the solution. This bill does not do that. We have to question that New Zealanders have huge problems with just paying everyday costs. The cost of living in terms of school lunches, in terms of public transport—we had a couple of solutions there, but this Government has taken that away and is providing tax cuts for those who actually don’t need it.

With regard to this bill, Labour absolutely opposes these options put before us, because they do not address the problem. You have heard my colleagues talk passionately about Auckland Council and Watercare. However, under this current bill, what it explains is that Aucklanders will be worse off.

So I asked the Government, because they’re so passionate in terms of their behaviour—and they’re all looking at their phones because they don’t want to look at us. But Labour opposes this because it does not leave New Zealanders with good water infrastructure. We need quality water infrastructure for waste water, for stormwater, and for drinking water. I did hear the previous member, Catherine Wedd, from the region where we lost lives because of the water that was provided that was not healthy, and as a result we lost a life there.

I want to just explain that the options before us do not provide the solutions that balance sheet separation would have provided, because it would have created the funding for good water investment. It would have been a sustainable solution that New Zealanders would have confidence in. Also, for that side of the House, it would have included our voices from tangata whenua.

It is important that New Zealanders understand the limitations and the constraints that are provided by the analysis in terms of the regulatory impact statement. People need to explain that, because there is no process for New Zealanders to understand.

So in terms of water infrastructure, the fact that this bill is being rammed through in urgency is not something that we should be celebrating. In actual fact, we should be questioning and, in particular, scrutinising the effects, especially the financial effects that it will have on ratepayers, particularly for our communities who are on fixed incomes and who are in a worse financial situation. They are now going to be worried about paying for what they deserve—good, healthy drinking water and good water infrastructure. So this bill does not do that.

In terms of this side, the expectation for every New Zealander is to have good, healthy drinking water that they are able to access day in, day out. So in terms of the rates rises that not just Aucklanders will face, it comes at a time when it’s absolutely unaffordable. My plea to the Government is to rethink this and have more conversations, not just with New Zealanders but with the solutions that were provided by the last Government that that side of the House does not agree with. So I am very pleased to put forward that we will be opposing this bill. I do not commend this bill.

Keep it local; deliver water services; get it done; do it well. I fully support this bill and seeing local water done well.

The question is that the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary—

Celia Wade-Brown: Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the referral motion.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Celia Wade-Brown: Apologies, Mr Speaker.