Local Government (Water Services) Bill, Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I present a legislative statement on the bills divided from the Local Government (Water Services) Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I move, That the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill be now read a third time.

I have the privilege of leading this final step to complete the legislative framework for New Zealand’s water services delivery system. These bills implement Local Water Done Well, the Government’s plan to address challenges with New Zealand’s water services. Many of the changes we are making are urgently required.

Simply put, chronic under-investment and the lack of sustainable management of local government water services has come home to roost. Around the country, communities are facing significant challenges that have been repeatedly ignored or not adequately addressed. Poor or badly managed water services cause economic harm to businesses and inhibit growth. Failure of water services can make people ill or even worse. This is a basic necessity to get right and has been put on the backburner for too long. Inadequate maintenance of existing services and the failure to grow new services is costing us. Much-needed new housing development is being slowed or even halted by lack of capacity in water service networks. Ratepayers are facing unsustainable cost increases. We cannot afford to let these trends continue.

These bills will enable sustainable growth to meet the needs of our communities and businesses. These bills give local government the responsibility and the tools to address the challenges facing their communities and to more cost-effectively deliver water services. I want to keep repeating that Local Water Done Well will maintain local ownership, choice, and decision-making. That gives councils the best shot at identifying their most pressing problems and the right approach to solving them.

The Local Government (Water Services) Bill provides a range of service delivery models, including new water organisations, that will be able to operate at scale for councils to determine how best to meet local needs. The bill sets appropriate governance and accountability mechanisms and maintains requirements for public ownership. Thanks to the flexible options in this bill, councils will be able to choose the best structure for financially sustainable water services that meet regulatory requirements and local needs. Current indications are that many councils will enter into multi-council arrangements and tailor these arrangements to their own local needs and preferences.

Through the preliminary arrangements Act, several councils have already submitted their water services delivery plans, providing certainty to their communities and their structure for delivery, going forward. Last month, I was pleased to see Hamilton City Council and Waikato District Council’s plan accepted by the Secretary for Local Government. This will establish a new multicouncil, council-controlled organisation. This plan will meet local needs and scale efficiencies. I’m heartened to see that all the plans accepted to date have shown a clear willingness to consider forming larger regional models over time.

Let’s be clear about something: the success of Local Water Done Well has nothing to do with how many water entities we have; it is about ensuring councils are using a model which is financially sustainable and meets all regulatory requirements so we can have safe, reliable water services for all Kiwis. These bills are clear that the water services need to be financially sustainable. Development and maintenance must be improved, but costs must be met fairly. Growth should pay for growth, and appropriate levels of borrowing will allow costs to be spread equitably between current and future ratepayers.

It also bears repeating that the arrangement with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), struck last year by the Government, is a game-changer for local government water services. The arrangements give access to an enhanced level of finance from LGFA to water organisations that are financially supported by their parent council. This financing is crucial for many councils to support investment in water infrastructure over long periods of time rather than funding through rates. This approach is prudent and consistent with regulated public utilities around the world. This fulfils our promise to enable more investment in infrastructure, sooner.

These bills introduce economic regulation for water services to provide appropriate oversight and accountability to councils and consumers that water services are being well managed. Economic regulation will initially apply to drinking water supplies and waste-water services, whether these are delivered by councils or new water organisations. Economic regulation will promote quality services that meet New Zealand’s expectations at appropriate prices to consumers. We have looked hard at the regulatory requirements to strip out excessive and unnecessary costs. We are ensuring that compliance requirements are at the level needed to achieve safe and effective water services. Regulation must be cost-effective and proportionate to the risks that need to be managed.

This Government made a promise on Going for Housing Growth, and that is why enabling growth is a key objective for all water service providers. There are clearer processes for them to work collaboratively with developers, landowners, and water service users to deliver and maintain necessary services. All parties will have greater certainty about decision making, and clear pathways to resolve disagreements. With these bills, councils will be required to publish detailed information about existing and planned water services infrastructure. This will enable a more collaborative approach between councils and developers, and time and cost will be reduced by a simplified approval process for connections. Councils will be able to set up new tools, such as infringement fines, which will allow quick and effective responses to damaging or risky behaviours such as dumping rubbish in water networks.

The bill provides much-needed clarity in stormwater management about who is responsible for managing various types of risks and hazards, especially work to reduce risks or prevent risks from happening. As you can see, long-term thinking is needed to set a strategic and integrated approach for water services. Many of these basics were not being achieved under the status quo. New Zealanders don’t want to worry about water gone wrong, unsafe drinking water, inadequate stormwater management, or failing pipes and infrastructure. This reform sets up a future where investment in these critical services means they won’t have to.

The progress we are making with these bills is yet another key achievement in our work to address the challenges faced by New Zealanders’ water services. In less than two years of Local Water Done Well, we have curbed water charges for Aucklanders through the Auckland Council - led Watercare solution. We have also secured better access to low-cost, long-term finance for water services from the Local Government Funding Agency.

Successfully establishing the right regulatory framework for water services through these bills is yet another huge milestone on the journey to the water services system that New Zealanders need and deserve. I now look forward to supporting local government to complete the work that lies ahead, using the new structure and tools to achieve what they are designed to do for the benefit of all. I commend these bills to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The time has finally come. The time has finally come that this bill—this Government’s bill—confirms and cements for households all around our country and in communities that they are to bear higher prices because of this Government’s “Local Water Done Badly” form of water reform. Higher prices. What we’ve just heard from that Government Minister, the Hon Casey Costello, is a very clear indication and message to households all around the country that it is coming your way—it is coming your way, the increase in costs that households can expect to receive. It’s on that basis and the lack of foresight and planning and execution on the part of this Government when it comes to water reform that we opposed these bills in their divided form, in their entirety.

This opportunity for water reform really does miss a beat. It is a missed opportunity in any sense to signal to households around New Zealand that what could be delivered was something that was affordable, something that was equitable, and something that was sustainable, with a view to the long term. That is not something that this Government has sought to do in its approach to changing how water reform will exist in this country. That’s why it is deeply, deeply disturbing that they have held true to just continue down this path of what is a very one-track mind.

What this bill does is it imposes on councils—and, therefore, on households—burdens, without any adequate financial support. There is no adequate financial support for the changes that this Government is seeking to implement to support households through what is a difficult time now and what will be a difficult time in the future under these reforms initiated by this Government.

It also seeks to undermine any form of investment when it comes to long-form investment or longterm investment in water infrastructure. It weakens the environmental protections and the environmental aspects that people who came to select committee, who wanted to have their say on this and wanted to be heard—have been ignored by this Government. Today is a shameful day in that particular sense.

We believe that this bill will lead to higher costs for ratepayers, it will lead to a fragmented form of delivery of water services around this country, and it actually is—it won’t lead to; it is—a failure to address some fundamental issues when it comes to long-term infrastructure needs for water services here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This bill actually incentivises one thing: it incentivises councils not to work with each other—it incentivises councils not to work with each other. It moves away from something that could have been centralised and something where real efficiencies could have actually been achieved and gained. Instead, actually, what we’re seeing are councils all around this country opt out of a regional opportunity, or the other side of that is that they are left as orphan councils, because they have no other opportunity.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: We said that would happen.

TANGI UTIKERE: We did say that would happen, and that is what is coming true.

I know that there are members opposite—I know there are members all around this House—as they talk to councils either in their local area or, as I have been, meet with councils all around the country—we know and they know that there are councils that have been forced into this position because their hands have been tied behind their backs and there are no other options for them.

We cannot, we will not, support what is inadequate levels of resourcing when it comes to water services in this country. This is something that is actually not just subpar, it is actually dangerous, because it is setting up for the future something that is not going to be able to be achieved. We know that because we just need to look at reporting today. I mean, the reporting that’s come out today bandies around a few figures. The Minister said in her contribution earlier that ratepayers are facing unsustainable costs. Well, there is a truth—there is an absolute truth—because ratepayers in this country are facing unsustainable costs under this “Local Water Done Badly” model.

If we look at costs and water bills in Christchurch, going up $900 a year; Hamilton—and I know there’s a member here who represents that community—$1,700 a year; Nelson, $750; Dunedin, $1,200; Wellington possibly going from an extra $2,100 to $4,800 a year. These are significant prices that this Government is forcing on to households to bear that cost. They will try and blind everyone and say, “No, no. This is the best option that’s out—the best option that’s possible.” It is far from the truth when it comes to reality.

So it is a sad day that we are here voting on a bill that is going to deliver more costs to communities. While Christopher Luxon and this Government promised to make things better, he and his Government are making things worse. By pursuing this one-track mind in terms of water reform around this country for communities, he and his Government are simply indicating that they know best and they are simply expecting communities to fail.

I have been travelling around the country and I have been meeting with councils, listening to the concerns, listening to the struggles that they are facing. While we hear from the Government that there’s a sense of happiness from the Government that these water delivery service plans are going to be filed by 3 September and we hear from the Minister today that everything’s on track, why is it then that the Government is seeking to issue letters to councils to encourage them to undertake some form of regional collaboration? Well, I’ll tell you why: it’s because the very form of reform that this Government has is not incentivising any form of regional collaboration. It’s actually saying to councils, “You need to go back to the drawing board and think about how you’re going to deliver this, but we’re not going to really encourage you to work alongside other communities and other councils. You’re not going to get any of the regional efficiencies that those gains would bring.” That’s deeply, deeply disturbing.

We heard through the select committee from councils all around the country as to what this reform package would mean for them. Yet, what we have in front of us are two bills that do nothing but complete—I think Rachel Brooking referred to it as—a horror trilogy in terms of water reform from this Government. That is very sad indeed, particularly where there are issues around credit ratings and where there are issues around councils that are faced with borrowing headroom or the lack of it. What we are going to see is a deficit when it comes to meeting the needs of water service infrastructure for communities all around the country.

Households deserve much better from the Government. This is a Government that is failing them in this regard. This is a Government that is saying to households, “We don’t care about the challenges that you face at the moment. We don’t care that, yes, there is a cost of living crisis. What we do care about is forcing you to dig deeper into your pockets to meet costs that we don’t actually know what those costs would be, but we’re not prepared to incentivise any regional collaboration.” That is shameful. That is absolutely shameful.

One of the things throughout this water reform that’s been deeply concerning is hearing from councils and communities, for example, about the last-minute levy that was slapped on them as a result of the regulator’s work under this Government. Councils had gone through planning and consultative processes, and then to, basically, say, “Well, you’re going to have to pay this significant amount of money—this levy that’s coming your way—without even knowing about that.”, I think is just yet another way that signifies how serious this Government is about its partnership with the local government sector. I think people can think for themselves around what that particular course of action would look like.

Households will bear an unfortunate cost. While, for example, The Post has reported today just some of those costs, these are costs that will be replicated all around the country—all around the country. The majority of these costs are in the thousands upon thousands of dollars. Yet the Government turns its head when it comes to looking at all the infrastructure needs in the three waters space for affordable water reform when it comes to the long-term approach. All of their data, all of their figures, are actually not looking at a 30-year horizon. It’s simply saying, “How can we actually incentivise councils to work together? Oh, actually, we won’t do that, because we’re going to say, ‘You go and do what you like. You be an orphan child if that’s how it ends up for you.’ ”

This is not a good piece of legislation. We have continued to oppose this. This will land on households and mean that they will be faced with additional costs that are simply unfair. This could have been avoided, but this Government believes that they know best, and that’s unfortunate. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I want to take a moment to acknowledge how important this issue is, both for our people and for the environment. I want to take a moment on that because it is often—and particularly this week just been, but definitely this sitting block—quite staggering, the extent to which the Government fails to understand the bleeding obvious.

There are Kiwis today who turn on their tap and cannot rely on the drinking water that comes out of it, and they’re nervous about what impact it might have on them, on their kids, or whatever use they want to have with that water. Is it safe to brush their kids’ teeth? Is it not?

The same goes with countless experiences in countless estuaries, rivers, and beaches, where it used to be safe to swim, where it used to be safe to fish or gather kai, and over such a long period of time now those ecosystems have been degraded to the extent that the ecosystem is now not only unrecognisable but severely ecologically compromised. These days, who sees seagrasses in their tidal estuaries anymore? They’re extremely rare and they used to be a common occurrence. We used to see so many kōura or freshwater crayfish in our rivers. We used to not have to think twice about collecting and eating shellfish from our estuaries and beaches.

This bill was that opportunity to stop being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and to actually move the focus to investment decisions that actually prioritised the health of our communities and the health of our water sources; our access to safe, clean drinking water; and actually waste-water and stormwater solutions that do not unnecessarily harm our health, and we could have done it collectively. Like my colleague Tangi Utikere has just pointed out, there is no incentive in this bill to actually do this collectively so that no community was unfairly burdened with the cost, but, sadly, these are the very areas where this bill absolutely fails.

As disappointing as it was to be part of the select committee process in terms of seeing how rushed this bill was, I really want to thank the many submitters who did take the time in those very constrained time line processes to actually have their say. I particularly want to thank the officials as well, who were completely scrambling, at times, to keep up with the demands of this Government and the fact that this bill was really hashed together with very little due diligence and due scrutiny. That is the reality of a bill of this magnitude, with this many implications, so a big thanks to the community and to the officials.

In this, I particularly want to thank the councils, because they’re, essentially, the ones that are forced to grin and bear it while the Government constantly reiterates this misguided, ill-informed myth that the Government is somehow better placed to make decisions that should stay with local government.

Now, from my time on local government—you know, I really miss the constraints of local government, where you were actually forced to talk to community. You were forced to have options that actually looked at the evidence base, and those informed your decisions. It’s so clear that this is now absent from this bill. It’s been particularly clear in the bigger picture of where this bill sits, with the massive overreach that we just had in this last-minute amendment in the resource management bill last week, where the Government introduced the implications by which the Minister for the Environment is now able to gatekeep the decisions that local government would usually be able to make that would have impacts on the quality of the discharges that come out of our waste-water and stormwater systems. It’s just part of that bigger picture of how this bill falls so short in actually meeting New Zealanders’ needs.

Now, as to the flaws of the bill, it’s hugely disappointing to have to relitigate these again and again, but it seems like the Government just does not hear it. So the first part of that: in the initial version of the bill, there was a really sensible objective up front and centre that service providers would actually provide water services that “do not have adverse effects on the environment;”, and the Government chose to remove that. They decided that this wasn’t going to be the time where investment in the health of our people and the environment actually came first, and that’s a serious problem. It’s a serious problem because we know that for 60 percent of our waste-water treatment plants, their consents will come up for renewal in the next decade, and 20 percent of those are already operating on expired consents. There’s going to be this massive investment decision time frame in the next few years by these water service providers. This was our opportunity to make sure that those decisions actually reflected community needs and desires.

The other aspect where this Government has completely and utterly failed to grasp, again, the bleeding obvious is that these water service providers will operate here in Aotearoa New Zealand. What that means is that iwi and hapū have ongoing recognised—and also, unfortunately, unrecognised—tino rangatiratanga over fresh water. So when you’re carrying out significant reform that impacts fresh water in such a critical way, the most basic thing that the Government could do as a Te Tiriti partner is actually to recognise and provide for a place where mana whenua Māori have a place in the formation of these water entities. Now, thank goodness for the very basic changes that did happen at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that strengthened some provisions and protections for Treaty settlements, particularly Ngāti Rangi and Te Ture Whaimana. Yes, some councils will understand their partnership roles, but others, as we’re seeing right now during the local government campaign, dive right into this racist rhetoric around Māori wards and even basic representation of iwi and hapū in these decisions, and they are excluding Māori. That means that we will not get to a proper solution when it comes to these decisions.

The ultimate failure in this bill is this ill-thought-out set of single standards when it comes to waste water and stormwater. I wanted to quote Selwyn District Council’s submission on this, because they really summed it up: “These standards effectively remove the ability for council to impose community-informed rules or standards even where those rules are more restrictive due to local environmental needs. The council is concerned there will be a lack of oversight and that centrally designed and nationally applicable standards may lead to worse environmental outcomes due to a lack of appreciation for local conditions, issues, or nuances.”

Now, another example that was given of this is in Ōtautahi Christchurch with the waste-water treatment plant there. I wonder how the coastal communities there would react if they knew that when the city waste-water treatment plant comes up for consent renewal, the limits of bacterial counts from the waste-water treatment plant will rise from 1,000 coliform units to 5,000 coliform units up to 40,000 units, and they’ll be paying for the privilege of that. They will be absolutely devastated and disgusted. To add further insult to injury with that, this bill prohibits public or even limited notification so that the community actually gets their say.

This bill is yet another nail in the coffin of deliberate dismantling of freshwater protections. Kiwis needed the Government to actually get this right. They’ve failed to do so, and Te Pāti Kākāriki absolutely do not support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is two bills, reforming the way local government and water services interact. What it is doing is far from what the Opposition has been accusing it of. What it’s doing is addressing an issue that we’ve had for a long time, which are delays and avoidance of infrastructure renewals, refreshments, and making sure that the issues such as leaks or use are being taken into account. We’ve got a problem with people avoiding costs in the future, and the cost of living is an example of that, where people are paying higher inflated costs due to a lack of outcomes for money spent in the past—in the same way that ratepayers are seeing water costs rising, but it’s from decisions made in the past, not this bill.

This bill is maintaining what New Zealanders asked for—that’s local control and ownership of the assets which they have built up and paid for. It’s giving local authorities different options of ways to manage their local water. That will be through in-house delivery, coming up with council-controlled organisations (CCOs), being a sole CCO for their own council or in partnership with other councils—but it’s giving that local control.

We’ve heard some comments about regulations. One of the things that really needs to be taken into account is the different size and variety of water supplies. You know, if you’re a small rural scheme or a stand-alone domestic scheme supplying a couple of dwellings, you need to be addressed by the regulator with cost-proportionate and risk-proportionate regulations, otherwise it’s going through the roof. That is just some of the things that this bill is doing.

It’s a bill that needs to be done, because we are seeing issues in our local authorities’ provision of water and taking away of said water once it’s used. The costs have gotten too high. Councils need to be on the ball with their renewals, with their consent pathways coming up, so we don’t end up in a situation where there are consents outstanding.

We’ve got Resource Management Act reform coming—and plenty of other things—but in the meantime, this bill is going to address some of those issues in water. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. I can’t believe what I’m hearing in the House today. I’ve been hearing that councils across the country aren’t happy with this. I must say, on my journeys across New Zealand—I know my colleagues, as well, travel across and meet all the councils, and they’re giving me a different sign. They’re telling me this legislation is something that they wanted and they advocated for, so I’m very confused by the Opposition saying that the councils are struggling with this piece of legislation. They were struggling with the past legislation from the past Government.

Through my experience on the Marlborough District Council—in my last term at council—I saw the amount of signs that went up around the community about stopping three waters. There was a community outcry about what the past Government was trying to implement. This here, as we just heard from the last speaker, gives back local control. It gives back local ownership.

What was so concerning to constituents and ratepayers and councils across this country was that the last Government wanted to give everything away. It was going to be given away to four megaentities. But this is actually giving control. It’s not centralisation; it’s actually giving back to local decision makers. It’s giving back to local councils control over their assets. It’s keeping those assets within the council or within the parent company. That was the major concern with the past legislation.

To this point, you’ve got to look why we are here, and you have to really go back to 2016. You have to go back to Havelock North and what happened there. The event that happened there—with an unconfined aquifer—where people got sick and some people died was tragic, and that’s something that was debated in this House at the time, and there needed to be improvements. Nobody steps away from that. That’s why we’ve got the regulator. Now we’ve got a regulator that is there around controls of standards. But the last Government, in their way of fixing that, threw $1.2 billion down the drain. They didn’t fix a pipe. How many pipes did you fix—$1.2 billion, and you didn’t—and they laugh at us. But having spent $1.2 billion, you walk around Wellington, you walk around our cities, and water is pouring out of the ground. It is unbelievable. Nothing was fixed—$1.2 billion was spent and nothing is fixed.

This here is going to give local councils the ability to get on with the job. We have had the legislation with the preliminary arrangements around water service plans that got councils under way doing those plans. It’s given councils the ability to set up whether they’re going to keep water under their own control or through council-controlled organisations. That has all been under way. They are now able to set up the water organisations and, again, keep that in local control.

I was able to sit on the select committee for this. There was a massive amount of amendments. I don’t shy from that. It is a big piece of legislation. As we see in the House today, the bill’s been split. There is a lot of detail in this, but I do believe it does give certainty. But, really, the major part to this piece of legislation is the risk. We’ve got to look at the risk that is involved and the proportionate response that you have to give. If you look at many councils across the country that are treating water to high standards and waste water to high standards, and then being told that they have to put that to land and spend hundreds of millions of dollars, it makes no sense. Excess costs over standards that are too high are no good for community rates and are no good for actually trying to make betterquality decisions.

We’ve heard through the legislation about the growth around the development levies. That was well debated and has been changed. I agree with the last speaker, too, around the rural supplies—those under 25 connections and less not actually being involved in this. Communities where I live in the Marlborough Sounds—small communities—were going to face huge costs of having to implement the last piece of legislation that now falls away under here.

Stormwater—that’s rainwater and rainfalls—we don’t have a lot of control over that, but we have clarity in this piece of legislation about who actually has to deal with stormwater. That is the territorial authorities. Isn’t it great to get rid of co-governance from this piece of legislation? Get rid of it. We are about New Zealanders. We are about Kiwis. We do not want takiwā boundaries, like we had in Marlborough, which was absolutely nonsense. We are about water and where water is falling and looking after communities, and nothing about nonsense, backroom takiwā boundaries that have nothing to do with water delivery.

I’m so glad the Opposition is so vocal, because it just shows how bad the last piece of legislation was. New Zealand First is about common sense, and the changes that New Zealand has demanded are in this piece of legislation. New Zealand First is supporting it because it protects public ownership—public ownership—that the Opposition was giving away. It will enhance accountability, and it puts communities back at the heart of water management. I’m very proud, and it’s a tremendous day. It’s not the day that the Opposition is saying; it’s a tremendous day that this piece of legislation is going to be passed, and I commend it to the House.

This is a five-minute split call—Mariameno KapaKingi.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Yeah, I don’t know how common sense that sounded on the left for me, but I do know that in the time of when three waters was a thing, 14 iwi groups and hapū groups came together under Waipunarangi and Te Tai Tokerau and made very good decisions. I know this lot gets concerned about this thing called “co-governance”, but whatever you decide to call it, it just comes down to some more racist thinking. I find it interesting when the member on the left decides to use Māori words like takiwā—no other side of that does he use Māori words in any other way, but suddenly, when he wants to damn an idea, he uses our reo, te reo Māori. I don’t know whether it’s his reo, but certainly he uses it in such an obvious and ridiculous, racist way. Man, I would suggest that he read some more. So, yeah, I’m going to go.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just, now, with the racist call, where it pertains to an individual, please be careful.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Yes—generalise it?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Oh, it was general—I’ll take it as not pertaining to the individual.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: It does not. It’s a general comment to a number of pieces of policy being rammed through in the last little while.

This bill revokes the ability of Māori to maintain equal decision-making power alongside local government. Who, in their madness, would want that? What else do you call that? We know what it’s called. The fact that you might not own up to it—but here we go. The groups that were set up at that time—and it was such a short time, but, you know, we were doing some blinkin’ good things. We were thinking about it in a very whānau and hapū way. We had mokopuna in the centre of all the things that impact on Tai Tokerau, but not just Tai Tokerau. I can talk about that, because I was part of that group and part of the ideas that just rained and were smart—very mokopuna-centric—and we knew what we were doing. Why did we know? We knew better than local governments, actually. Why did we know? Because we walk those areas, we understand all of the waterways, we understand our whenua, we understand our settings better than anybody.

But, suddenly, some smart—well, no, not smart; some blind-minded thinking person decides that they know better than Māori about Māori land, about Māori whenua, about Māori resources, about Māori mokopuna and Māori children and marae. They think that they know better. What a nutty thing to do. What a dangerous thing to do. It’s no different to our Māori wards—ridiculous behaviour that’s going on now, to say, “No, no, we don’t need any of that Māori stuff. We don’t need any of that takiwā stuff.”, like I just heard from the left. We all know what you’re saying. You are saying: “If it’s Māori, that means its Treaty; that means it has no place in this coalition.” What a dangerous and bad thing to do. You will suffer by your thinking and your decisions. You will suffer by it. Bring on 2026.

So, by ignoring the role of Māori in the delivery of water services, this House simply passes the challenge on to the next generation—good on you. Removing these provisions is not progress; it is reform, it is regression, and it is deeply and only racist. Just own up and say it—just say it. Just, like, yeah, OK, then we’ll know e pono ana koe i wāu kōrero [you are true to your word]. “We can’t help ourselves; we think we know better. We are all New Zealanders—we’re not Māoris. We’re all New Zealanders.”, which is code for “We’re all the same.”, which is really code for “We’re all that same.”—not my same, because if I said we were all the same, I would honour you with all your Māori whakapapa. I would honour you with an 1840 thing that gave you permission to live here, for goodness’ sake! Wake up and read the history. You are only here on the basis of our tūpuna’s grace and kindness, and you are still here on that basis, though the bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A lot of “you”s in there; please find another word.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: All right then. I’ll generalise it then, yet again. All right, that lot—all right. The bill, in all its thinking and design, ignores, dismisses, forgets how you get to live here—how non-Māori, how tangata Tiriti get to live here; how tangata moana get to live here, right. One forgets one’s history. I implore you—I implore you—get the education, understand, and understand the grace that Māori and tangata whenua give to all that live here. What an atrocious piece of work. Kia ora tātou.

Just before I call the next speaker, to those on my right who are saying, “Stick to the bill”, just remember that the previous speaker did bring the issue up; therefore, it became a debating point.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: They can’t take it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): And no comment on the Speaker’s ruling, please, Mr McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Fair enough.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, not fair enough, at all. Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. I call Celia Wade-Brown.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we turn our minds back to the last throes of the election and the insulting and appalling billboards about the original three waters, I think we can see why we have ended up in an unpleasant and messy place. I’d like to quote from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and one might wish that flavours of his political views had continued to today’s National Party, but it would appear not: “The current Bill not only continues the fragmented approach, but in some respects, doubles down and makes for an even more complex, fragmented and incoherent approach. This is more than unfortunate and highlights again that the initiators of this reform had (and still have) little idea of how the environment is managed.” That, members of the National Party, is from one of your own.

Not only will there be higher prices per household, as my colleague Tangi Utikere has mentioned, but also there will be lower standards. Again, Mr Upton calls for some recognition that not all of our receiving waters are the same. He called for the ability for councils to set—or whatever the organisation may be. It may be a council, it may be a council-controlled organisation, it may be a conglomeration—but that they should be able, with the support of their community, to call for higher standards rather than the lowest.

Also, this water services bill ignores the long-held knowledge, the mātauranga Māori, of how water flows, where it runs as ephemeral streams, where aquifers are recharged from, and where iwi wish to continue to collect kai moana. I have been to Takapūwāhia Marae and heard how hurt they are that they cannot provide kai moana to the manuhiri because of decades of sedimentation and of pollution of the Porirua Harbour. Nothing in this bill solves or even recognises those problems.

I also believe that this bill in many ways, in its introduction, has been anti-democratic. There were so many amendments brought in at the same time as members of the three coalition parties were trying to shut down debate. Those amendments did not come before select committee. They were not discussed by the councils, the households, the iwi, in any way, shape, or form. In the Governance and Administration Committee recently, we actually quizzed the Office of the Auditor-General on how many years there were zero questions about the quantum of investment in three waters. There were zero challenges to the three-year budget, the 10-year long-term plans, and the 30-year asset management plans, which would be highly appropriate if all of the highfaluting talk about bipartisan infrastructure—if central government had longer-term budgets that we could see.

It’s going to be financially challenging. I noticed today that the Minister of Finance—whatever her ambitions may be; she’s currently the Minister of Finance—is very clear about the ratings that Government received. Well, 18 councils have had their credit ratings downgraded as a direct consequence of this bill. That means that other borrowings will be more expensive for the councils and for their ratepayers. We will be opposing this bill.

We all remember, only two or three years ago, those signs on every motorway overbridge and farm fence: “Stop Three Waters”. The challenge for the Opposition today and their remaining speakers is to commit to bring back three waters. Let’s see if they’ve got the temerity to bring back three waters—and I don’t think you’ll be hearing that today.

Local Water Done Well—this is the third reading of the third bill. It is giving councils the choice of new water service delivery models. Most are coming to form these multi-council councilcontrolled organisations (CCOs). In fact, if you look at, say, Mayor Sam Broughton, Selwyn Mayor—not necessarily a friend of this Government. A CCO—they were the first; Selwyn were the first to come up with a water CCO under this legislation. They say—the Selwyn District Council—that a CCO would bring new opportunities to manage and fund water services separately from rates for current and future ratepayers.

This is a great outcome for councils, this is a great outcome for communities, and this is a great outcome for Kiwis. I commend the bill.

When people said yes to having a “get rid of three waters” sign on their land at the last election, I don’t think they knew they were signing up for the kinds of cost increases that they’re going to experience under the legislation that we’re passing today. What we are seeing is an example of the Government making things worse for Kiwi households, making it harder for them to balance their budgets.

If we have a look around the country, what does Local Water Done Well, or whatever they’re calling it, do? If you live in Christchurch, let’s say just for example, like I do, what we are going to see is water charges increase by $900 a year. If you live in Hamilton, the hike will be $1,700; in Nelson, more than $750; in Dunedin, $1,200 a year increase. In Selwyn, that the previous speaker, Cameron Brewer, was just talking about and holding up as a poster child, get ready for an $1,800 a year increase in your water charges, because that is what this Government thinks doing water well looks like.

Each and every National MP is going to have to front up to their communities and tell them why they think that extra money on their rates bill is a good idea and how that is doing something well. It is not doing it well; it is doing it badly, and it is taking New Zealand households backwards. It is making their lives harder, not better. Things are getting worse for them, and this will only add to that.

So what does this legislation do? Well, it shifts the financial risk to councils and ratepayers. What the Government said is, “Oh no, there are too few entities. There’s not enough room for local decisionmaking under the previous Government plans. So we’re going to get rid of any of the economies of scale and the money that could have been saved for ratepayers right across this country, and we’ll just let there be a proliferation of water service entities.” How many have we ended up with? Forty—40 water service entities, which is leading to an average increase in water charges for New Zealand households of $1,725.

Now, $1,725 is an awful lot of money for already stretched households to have to put on their budgets. This is money that New Zealanders simply cannot afford. These are costs that this Government is imposing on those households—it’s imposing on them. We heard it from a New Zealand First speaker: when it came down to it, it was all about the billboard and getting rid of cogovernance; they want to get rid of it. For that, each and every New Zealand household is going to carry the burden of an extra $1,725, on average, increase in their water charges. Is that making New Zealand a better place? No, it is not. It is making things worse, and each and every Government MP is going to have to front up to their constituents and tell them why those increased costs they’re paying are a good idea, because this is not how New Zealanders are seeing it.

What we have not seen is the coming together to form bigger water entities. As my colleague Tangi Utikere has pointed out, there are no incentives in this legislation for those orphan councils to come in and join larger entities, which would minimise costs for New Zealand households.

Now, we’re seeing this legislation come late in August. It’s pretty lucky that we have got this on the Order Paper for this week—a bit of a surprise from a Government that can’t manage its own legislative agenda—because what is happening on 3 September? That is D-Day for councils to have their water services delivery plans into Government—3 September. That’s why we’re seeing a flurry of these plans rise up at the moment and why it is becoming abundantly clear what the increased cost on New Zealand households will be in each and every location around the country.

The Government has made it pretty clear it’s going to be punitive for those councils that don’t have their plans ready on 3 September. I wonder how those councillors feel about the fact they’re going to have their plans in on 3 September, but the Government’s only managing to get this legislation through the House only a matter of a couple of weeks out from that looming deadline.

What else do we see in there? The coercive compliance model that the Government is imposing through that. What they’ve said is: if you don’t get that water services delivery plan in by 3 September, that triggers possible Government intervention, including the appointment of Crown water specialists. This is the Government that was all about local leadership and letting locals take control. They’re saying, “Get it in by 3 September or we’ll just come over the top and we’ll appoint some other people to oversee it.”

That is what this Government is about. It spoke a big game while it was banging up the billboards across the country. It’s an entirely different matter at the next election when they have to go back and explain to some communities, possibly, why they’ve overridden their council and appointed Crown water specialists in their place. How’s that going to look on the delivery of making sure that we have local leadership?

It also pushes the regulatory costs on to councils. Now, one of the things I think that we can all agree on is that there has been an under-investment over many decades in the water infrastructures around New Zealand. As a country, we must do better. If we want to grow our housing, if we want to grow our cities and produce more affordable housing, then it is absolutely imperative that we upgrade and keep expanding and keep investing in our water infrastructure. But in terms of pushing those costs on to councils, in the way in which this bill that is going through its final stages now is doing, it is not going to cure any of those problems.

This is a bill—as one of my colleagues sitting directly behind me keeps reminding the House in a very, very useful way—that just does not add up. It does not add up. If we think about the problems that we’re trying to solve by increased investment in water infrastructure, making everything more expensive, from the water charges households will pay to the regulatory burden that councils will carry, just does not make sense. More than that, this also weakens the public health protections that need to be there. Water is vital to our public health in New Zealand. Making it absolutely safe for people to drink the water and dispose of waste water in a way that protects public safety and health is a vital thing and something that’s a minimum that we should expect from our water system. But this makes it easier for small suppliers to opt out of full regulatory oversight.

Now, I want to live in a country that no matter where we turn on the tap, we can have the knowledge, and we can all have the faith, that water will be safe to drink and that it is not going to do harm. When I think about one of the things that is great about New Zealand, and there are many of them, it is actually our clean water—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You’re right.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —and the access to have that clean water, and we should not be downgrading it. You’re right, Mr McAnulty, it is in some places, and we need to ensure that it is in all of our places that we have that.

We also know that in this bill, there is a failure to protect our water services from privatisation. This is a bill that is not putting in place those protections to ensure that we can have the faith that public ownership gives our water services. I want to hear the next Government speaker get on their hind legs and reassure this House that there are no plans for privatisation of our water services, because what we can see, when we look around the world, if we think the bills are being hiked by this Government’s changes—and they are; by, on average, over $1,700 a year—is it will only get worse if there’s a privatisation of it.

We are disappointed we cannot support this, but this is a bill that increases the cost for New Zealand households. It makes it worse, not better, for them. It downgrades our environmental protections, and it downgrades our health protections. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to have a little bit of context. One of the previous members’ contributions—Tangi Utikere—talked about how these councils are being forced, which is rich given that four mega-entities were bestowed upon the previous lot. Megan Woods talked about the expense. Well, let’s talk about expense. Let’s talk about the $1.2 billion, and what have we got to show for it? I’ve got a pie graph [Mr Hamilton holds up a pie chart], and a third of that was just consultants and advisers—one-third, $400 million, on consultants and advisers. What have we got to show for that? Nothing. We’re quick to forget—what about the Better Off Fund? Tangi Utikere talked about “Where’s the incentive for the orphans?” Remember the Better Off Fund? Let’s give councils $500 million to get on board with our commanding rule! That’s ridiculous. Well, I’ve got to say: goodbye, Three Waters; hello, Local Water Done Well. Goodbye, co-governance; hello, locally chosen and designed options. Goodbye, four mega-entities—you nod your head, but you know I’m right—hello, localism and choice.

This is a split call.

Amongst all the clapping and cheering and hooting, I want us to remember why we needed to reform water services in this country. The previous Government was working on it; this Government is working on it.

Now, Havelock North is a lovely town. I’ve visited it often. It’s a really pleasant place to go to, and it’s a great place to go on a holiday and a great place to go on a wine tour. But just a very few years ago, the water supply there was contaminated, and four people died and many others became very, very ill indeed.

We have a problem with our water services in this country, and we all acknowledge that. We all acknowledge the need to have good water services. We all like to be able to go places and just turn the tap on and drink the water, and that’s part of the point of trying to reform water services, but this plan does not work. This plan pushes extraordinary costs on to households. This plan pushes all the responsibility out to local councils and it has central government taking no responsibility for funding the much-needed upgrades of water infrastructure.

This plan brought to us by that Government means that people in Christchurch will pay another $900 a year in rates—that’s a lot of money. People in Nelson will pay another $750 a year in rates. People in Hamilton, Mr Hamilton, will pay another $1,700 a year in rates. People in Dunedin will pay another $1,200 a year in rates. People in Wellington—not a city where most of us live, but we are here, week after week after week. The people that we live amongst for much of the time as we’re doing our jobs will pay up to, it’s estimated, an extra $4,800 a year in water rates. They’re extraordinary numbers.

Now, we know that work needed to be done on our water infrastructure, but where that Government has got it wrong is the extent to which they are pushing the costs of this on to local ratepayers. You see, when they campaigned so vigorously against three waters, when they got all flustered and flurried about it, and when they said that the best thing to do was localism, what they did not say clearly was that it meant pushing the costs of this out, as well. If we talk about having a fiscally sustainable water solution, this is not it, and it is not sustainable because of the costs it pushes on to ordinary households.

That’s not the only fault with this bill. Another one of the faults of it is the extent to which, under the guise of promoting localism, it will instead allow the Government to go in and tell local councils exactly what they must do. Now, under the guise of choice—a word that was used out there—we were told that local councils could choose who to join up with in order to provide water services. But all along we asked the question: what about Auckland councils? What about those who are getting left out? We know that some councils are getting left out because they have too small a ratings base and they have too few connections to make it financially viable for anyone else to take them on. In some areas, we’ve had regional entities try to get stood up and people try to work together to get these water services going, but those local entities have fallen over. That’s happening in Taranaki, in South Canterbury, and in the Western Bay of Plenty—areas where these proposed water services entities won’t get stood up because it can’t happen. What does that mean? It means that central government is going to come in over the top and tell them exactly what to do.

So those members cried localism and they campaigned on it, but when push comes to shove, they are not going to do it. They’re saying with one hand one thing, and doing something completely different. They should be ashamed of that.

I invite the members of that Government to read the excellent analysis from Thomas Manch over the past few days in the papers—have a look at the in-depth criticisms of this proposal and think again about why they are voting in support of this legislation. They should not do so. If they support localism and if they support low costs for households, they should join us and vote against these bills.

We campaigned on scrapping Labour’s Three Waters, and we delivered. We campaigned on our own Local Water Done Well policy, and today, we deliver the third tranche of reforms of Local Water Done Well.

It is a great day for councils up and down the country, for autonomy and flexibility to design water services for their communities. It’s a great day for ratepayers, who get to keep their water assets intact and have limited rates rises as a result. I don’t know where they get their figures from, but we are confident that they will face lower rate rises as a result.

It’s a great day for New Zealanders, because no longer do we have the divisive co-governance policies under the previous Labour Government. This law that we are passing today is all about the basics: ensuring councils can fund and deliver the basics of water infrastructure right across New Zealand. It’s a plan that works, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In a debate like this, it’s always quite telling what Government MPs have to say. Now, throughout this debate, there have been many claims, based on evidence and fact, that this bill will see significant increases in rates bills. Now, one might think that if those claims are being made in this House, Government members would want to take the opportunity to refute that. Those are pretty massive claims. We’ve heard figures in the thousands for various communities around this country, but did they do that? No, they didn’t. They read their key lines, and they sat down.

If this was such a significant day for the Government, I would have assumed that they would want to take the opportunity to explain how this bill will make it better for New Zealanders. Ultimately, they campaigned on improving the cost of living, and, as we know, if we look across the board, they are actually making it worse, and there’s no better example of that than this bill.

Now, I have studied the ruling of the Speaker this afternoon in question time, so I’m going to be very careful with my language here, but there have been some repeated lies all amongst this broader conversation around water reform. It is unfortunate, because, as my colleague Dr Deborah Russell mentioned, what started this entire debate was, essentially, an entirely regrettable situation where people died as a result of consuming water that should have been safe. When we opened up the hood—in fact, it wasn’t us; it was a previous National Government under Anne Tolley. When Anne Tolley opened up the hood, she recognised that the system was broken, it was utterly unsustainable, and no cheap political PR exercise was going to fix it. They commenced that work to review the delivery of three waters across this country. We came into Government and continued that work.

What was clear is that councils cannot do this by themselves, and what is also clear from councils’ own figures is that this country needs to find $185 billion over the next 30 years. Now, that’s the first figure that I have mentioned, but it is still more figures than any of the Government contributions in this debate so far. None of them have stood up and said how this plan will add up, and I’ll tell you why: because it doesn’t. I’ll tell you something else: they know it.

In communities like Northcote and Upper Harbour and Hamilton and New Plymouth and Christchurch and North Otago and Maungakiekie and Bay of Plenty and Southland—in every single one of the communities that are represented by members here tonight—rates are going up because of this bill, and every single one of them is going to vote for it.

I mentioned earlier that there had been some repeated lies throughout this broader conversation. What is interesting is the way that they have gone about this, because, in their own documents—in the Government’s own documents—the advice is quite clear that Local Water Done Well, so-called, does not add up. It’s in their own documents. Did they refer to the advice today? No, of course they didn’t, because it doesn’t add up. Councils’ own figures showed that over the next 30 years, $185 billion needs to be found, and this model, which is, essentially, a carbon copy of the Castalia modelling, doesn’t add up, so isn’t it interesting that Simeon Brown, who was the Minister at the time, went on councils’ long-term plan numbers, which have projections over the next 10 years?

Even then, it doesn’t really add up, but they can just make it look like it does. They have neglected deliberately—this is a deliberate political decision—the councils’ own projections from year 11 to year 30. They knew that councils had backdated most of that work between that period, so it would be disingenuous if anyone were to claim that the 10-year long-term plan period is one-third of the projected work, because it isn’t. The only way that they could make this look like it added up was to take a fraction of the projected costs, and they did that deliberately, and they knew that they were neglecting years 11 to 30.

The public will soon be bearing the consequences of that disingenuous approach. How can they stand up and say to New Zealanders that this adds up when they know from their own advice that it doesn’t? It is extraordinary. The cost to ratepayers will be in the thousands. This is, in some places, going to cost them more than the status quo. It is extraordinary, and it is actually unbelievable. This is a momentous day in the sense that the next time New Zealanders get their rates bill and they see a significant increase, which they will, they can think back to today and they can think back to the regions that I just read out earlier and see if their local member of Parliament has participated in this debate. Perhaps they might like to contact them, because every single one of the Government MPs is about to vote for significant rates increases. We already know that there are people who cannot afford to keep their homes because of rates increases.

Now, they will say, “Oh, no, we’ve capped rates.” This isn’t capping rates—$900 in Christchurch isn’t capping rates; $1,700 in Hamilton isn’t capping rates. The list goes on. All this Government is doing is smokes and mirrors, and what the country needs is an upfront conversation about the state of the problem. They campaigned, and they whipped up hysteria about what? Not about the cost, but about Māori being on the regional representative board. Why couldn’t they just say it? Why couldn’t they just swallow their pride and say, “Look, actually, what is being proposed is proven to work, but we don’t like Māori on that group.”, which wasn’t an ownership group, which wasn’t a governance group but was a regional representative group. Actually, that’s all they didn’t like, because they knew it would get them cheap votes in an election campaign.

They got into Government and they realised, “Actually, do you know what? The thing that we promised New Zealanders would work actually won’t work, and we probably already knew it wouldn’t anyway. I don’t know what we’re going to do. I know, we’ll screw the scrum, we’ll fiddle with the figures, we’ll make it look like it’s going to work, and when it really hits home, it’ll be somebody else’s problem to deal with.”

But their calculation is mis-skewed to one little degree: it won’t be in 18 months’ time when this hits home; it will be immediately. There will be people that simply cannot afford their water bills. There will be people that lose their homes because they cannot pay these bills. It’s happening already, so they can’t deny it won’t happen in the future.

Now, there’s one more Government call left. Will they stand up and explain to New Zealanders, in the 10 minutes that they have, how this bill makes it cheaper for ratepayers? No, because all they have is this inaccurate claim that $1.2 billion was spent and that none of it went into infrastructure. We’ve heard it here tonight. It’s just not true. It is not true—$527 million of the $1.2 billion went into water pipes, so the best argument they’ve got isn’t true. I think that sums it up. Why should New Zealanders have to put up with this and put up with a Government that has no interest in actually sorting the significant issues that we are facing? No community is immune, even Auckland—no one.

This bill affects every New Zealander, and every New Zealander in the midst of an ongoing cost of living crisis will have even less money now, because even if they don’t pay their rates, they will through their rents. Landlords will be faced with increases of thousands of dollars a year because of all of them, and you know what’ll happen: they’ll put rents up to cope with it. This will impact every Kiwi in the pocket. Why? They’re too arrogant to say that their plan won’t work.

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn’t part of the select committee that was associated with the committee stage of this bill, but I have had a bit of time in local government, and I saw the challenges around the water infrastructure that this bill is all about. I sort of questioned myself: how do we get to the spot? There are correct statements made on the other side of the House that we had a terrible, terrible outcome, which was the Havelock North situation. But I think it comes well before that, the reason as to why we’re in this predicament here. I think it’s around the construct of local government. What I mean by “the construct” is, I think, it’s about how do we actually elect our councillors to councils, to territorial local authorities, who are the ultimate decision makers—through their management and consultants—when they’re making decisions? I’ve seen far too often candidates for councils running on the mandate of keeping rates down—bang the table, “I’m going to make sure rates are going to be down” type of thing. I say that that is a very, very worrying comment. It should be a statement of every dollar we spend—every ratepayer dollar that we spend—should be a well-spent dollar. It’s a difference—it’s a difference.

So how did we get here? I think that we’ve had decades of under-investment. We’ve had decades where councils have not paid attention to this very, very important infrastructure, this very, very expensive infrastructure. There’s no doubt about it that there are councils or there are areas within New Zealand that have got significant spends ahead of them, whether it’s one year ahead, five years, 10 years—big, big spends. It’s going to cost money. There are going to be increases in the cost of water because there has been such an under-investment in this infrastructure. This is a rescue package of where we’ve got to with local government. That is my personal view, OK?

There are councils in New Zealand that have actually done a good job. I know that in Taranaki we’ve got some councils that have invested significant amounts of money in their infrastructure, and when they are needing the next lot, it’s actually well, well ahead. They are concerned that they are going to be subsidising next-door neighbours or other councils in the near term, when they’ve actually done a great job themselves as a council.

That is the challenge of the decision-making councils—whether they should amalgamate or not with other councils—and that’s part of the challenge of what they’re trying to get around with regards to it. This is all about ownership and control. What we heard clearly through our campaign, before the last election, is that the three waters that was proposed was taking away the control and ownership of these important infrastructure pieces for these councils themselves. That’s what it was all about, so we’ve come up with the proposal here where they retain the control, retain the ownership, and they can actually deliver it via a vehicle of which there are a number of options there. We are not dictating how they shall do it. They put the proposal to the Government, and it is assessed to make sure it can be enduring and sustainable into the future. It’s choice. It’s maintaining that localness—“subsidiarity”, if you want to put a title onto it.

This bill here is actually doing a lot of stuff that’s moving in the right direction. It does have a cost—it does have a cost—and it’s socialised, hopefully over a bigger scale of people. This is about trying to gain scale by joining councils together—largely, but not in every case. There are some councils that will, I believe, demonstrate that they can stand alone on their own two feet, and if that’s the case, I think the Government should be supportive of that. This bill here—or two bills, which are here in this third reading—is the final of the trifecta of all the different pieces of work that need to be done legislatively to be able to now put in place the mechanisms for the community of New Zealand to move forward with regards to this important water infrastructure. I commend the bill to the House.