Pham LanLAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just make sure we're aware and jump up a little bit quicker next time? Almost lost that call.LAN PHAM: Thank you—thank you. I appreciate that Madam Speaker. Look it's a real privilege to be able to speak to Te Pāti Kakariki's position on the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. It's kind of clever the name of this bill because by the time you finish saying the title to anyone they've completely lost interest. See [Gestures to Deputy Speaker]—and case in point. It's much like this Government's approach to our very real and very serious infrastructure deficit.But I want to assure every New Zealander out there that this bill matters. It matters because the official advice states really clearly that 35000 Kiwis get sick every year from simply drinking the water that comes out of their tap.Simon Court: Fake news.LAN PHAM: We have this rolling—fake news I just heard called out but it's actually in the official advice and official documentation. So thank you for pointing out that there's some real misinformation going on over that side.We have this rolling seasonal nightmare of health warning signs going up at our favourite swimming and fishing spots needing to avoid certain areas from the risk that our dogs or our little kids could get sick from the contamination of our waste water and our stormwater—the majority of which I might add discharge directly into our freshwater or coastal environment. Nearly ¼ of these are operating on expired consents. So yes we do have immense challenges on our hands—that needs to be addressed. But unfortunately this bill does not spell out a clear way forward.Firstly I want to touch on the use of urgency with the bill and the truncated select committee process which has been completely unnecessary. The time frame for submissions on this bill was nine days. It meant that councils and communities were unable to have their voices heard on legislation that has such significant implications for their health their local community and their environment. The New Zealand Law Society summed it up really nicely when they pointed out that the use of urgency in this case was not demonstrably necessary or appropriate".So we as the Green Party oppose this bill for a number of reasons and I wanted to start with the most foundational aspect of where this bill falls over: and that's with the role of Iwi/Māori partnerships and the Crown's Te Tiriti obligations that should be emphasised in this water service delivery—even in this preliminary bill.Now there was discussion about this. It was like "Oh you know that's covered in other legislation and this and that." But I want to make it really clear that iwi Māori have specific rights and responsibilities when it comes to water in Aoteroa in their exercise of tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. So meaningful consultation and collaboration with iwi Māori in terms of forming this legislation in terms of clear things that were actually spelt out in terms of the Crown's obligations are essential for upholding their rights and ensuring that water management practices and decisions actually align with cultural values and Te Tiriti obligations.Secondly the removal of Taumata Arowai being able to consider Te Mana o te Wai in the setting of their waste water standards is really inappropriate. It's completely short-sighted and it actually introduces considerable complexity and uncertainty into their processes and decision making. We heard really clearly from submitters during hearings on this bill that Te Mana o te Wai was designed as "a cohesive whole and that the removal of Te Mana o te Wai provisions from Taumata Arowai's considerations would be a significant step backward for New Zealand in our water management."We note submissions from public health experts who also considered this removal as "deprioritising the safety and quality of people's drinking water and potentially increasing the risk of illness from polluted drinking water." That is entirely unacceptable and unnecessary. Te Mana o te Wai was meant to be the driver that actually forced councils and any water service delivery partners to up the game when it comes to drinking water when it comes to the treatment of waste water and stormwater and this is a huge missed opportunity. It actually risks locking in immense under-investment in where we should be as a country. And the fact that this removal of Te Mana o te Wai from Taumata Arowai wastewater setting considerations was tacked on in this last-minute amendment bill that the committee has now adopted shows how little time and consideration these changes were actually given by Government.We had the Regulations Review Committee and the New Zealand Law Society both clearly spelling out that the proposed amendment is a "Henry VIII" clause in that it allows secondary legislation to actually override existing primary legislation and shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary which in this case it is clear it's not. It's simply bad law. And the complexity for Taumata Arowai comes into it that they're even saying that their obligations for decision making under Te Mana o te Wai aren't clear because they have it in the overarching legislation. It's a really bad idea and I'm really disappointed that the committee did not adopt a potential to remove the amendment from the bill.The other aspects that I wanted to touch on at this stage in the process were: the definition of "financial sustainability" which we proposed was actually widened to consideration of debt and future borrowing and also affordability for communities which has been so well covered by my colleagues across the House and also consideration of environmental sustainability. The current definition of financial sustainability in the bill is much too narrow to provide for that comprehensive decision-making that would actually enable us to have long-term resilient infrastructure and make really good decisions towards that.The other aspect that was really important that unfortunately the committee did not take up was about the time frames in the bill and I want to spell out here that we know that New Zealand is suffering climate impacts now and this is only going to be increased in the coming years and decades. I did want to point out though that the total replacement value for exposed particularly local government infrastructure is in the billions and this is just replacement value not the actual increase and uplift in our infrastructure that we need to actually respond to increasing sea-level rise and other such climate impacts. Unfortunately the committee has stuck with the 10-year time frame for the water services delivery plans which are completely insufficient when it comes to planning for resilient water infrastructure and water services particularly with these climate impacts.We would have liked to see the required time frame be a minimum of 30 years and have really clear expectations on councils that these plans would consider climate change as recommended by numerous submitters. We would have equally liked to have seen the committee adopt the submissions from local government in granting a more pragmatic 18- to 24-month time frame for submitting their water services delivery plans. Because as the public health experts summed up really concisely there's a high risk that councils and communities with fewer resources or more significant challenges may be underserved by the water services delivery plan processes as currently outlined.In those nine days that submissions were open for there were 182 submissions only; 102 were in opposition and only 19 were explicitly in support. I want to quote the official advice that so clearly spelt out that all councils submitted that "The cost and resource implications are both unclear and significant for councils making it challenging to plan or fund the reforms." And yet this Government is ploughing on. So in the absence of these really fundamental changes that we've just spelt out the Green Party is hugely disappointed by this missed opportunity to prioritise the health and wellbeing of our communities and we oppose the bill."