4. Question No. 4—Local GovernmentDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 4—Local GovernmentDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): My question is to the Minister of Local Government. What specific advice has she seen about the benefits of the Three Waters reform approach for cities—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to ask the member to ask the question as it is written on—and I'm just double-checking—the yellow sheet.4. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Local Government: My apologies—my apologies. What advice has she seen about the benefits of the Three Waters programme approach for cities such as Whangārei and Auckland?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I've seen hundreds of pages of detailed modelling and research that shows that all communities in New Zealand including Auckland and Whangārei will be better off under the Three Waters reform proposals. It's surprising to hear local mayors not supporting the reforms given that yesterday I released council-specific information that showed that average household costs per annum in 2051 in Auckland of $1910 would be reduced to $800. Then in Whangārei they would be reduced from $4060 to $800. [Interruption] But that's not all—SPEAKER: Order! No. The member is a bit lucky. As I've indicated yesterday I have received a lot of complaints recently about noise from the Opposition drowning out Ministers making replies. That was another case of that and it will stop. Interjections are meant to be rare and reasonable. Those interjections weren't. Now I'll say to Mr Goldsmith he came very close then.Matt Doocey: Point of order. Yesterday the Opposition sat through the Prime Minister chipping our questioners while they were asking their primary questions. Can I ask for some balance?SPEAKER: I might balance it by applying the rules but I won't at the moment because I'd prefer the member stayed in the House. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Just to recap in Whangārei average household costs per annum would be reduced from $4060 to $800. But that's not all. In Auckland they will also receive better-quality services and address the major water services issues that have been outlined in my most recent correspondence to Mayor Goff.Dr Emily Henderson: Is cross-subsidisation a valid concern and what benefits would accrue for an entity that included the Far North Whangārei and Kaipara district councils with Auckland Council?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The extensive modelling and research which we published yesterday shows that Aucklanders will be better off under the reforms even after joining up with Northland communities. I've heard calls from Mayor Goff and it's surprising to hear them given the number of times the Government and the rest of New Zealand has stepped in to support Auckland's shortfalls on infrastructure investment in the past. The real issue for Auckland is their constrained balance sheets and operational inefficiencies when compared to water entities of the same scale. As a Government we simply want Aucklanders to save money have access to safe water and be able to go to their beaches and swim safely. Aucklanders want all of this. I would have thought that Mayor Goff would have wanted it too.Dr Emily Henderson: Is she concerned that councils such as Whangārei and Auckland have signalled that they are not supporting the proposed Three Waters reform?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I've released significant information yesterday on the specific benefits to Whangārei and Auckland and all other New Zealand communities for their ratepayers and water users through the reforms. I urge those councils to take the time to digest their information and share it with their residents ratepayers and householders. We need to continue to work together on this reform programme to ensure the delivery of these vital infrastructure services have the very best chance of success. Even though the benefits of reform to its residents are very clear I do acknowledge that Whangārei is one of the very few councils in this country with very little debt. We're working with Local Government New Zealand to address this specific situation and to put together an approach to support councils on these reforms.Christopher Luxon: Supplementary.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Point of—SPEAKER: Yeah a point of order?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I'm happy to take the question.SPEAKER: The member has to sit down if she's going to take a question.Christopher Luxon: Will she rule out forcing and mandating councils to participate in the Three Waters reforms?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I said previously I've encouraged councils to ensure they have the full suite of information and research and modelling to be able to make a decision so they can see the benefits of reform and understand them and then explain those benefits back to ratepayers. I'm sure all councils will want to be in that position prior to pre-determining an outcome that might ultimately negatively impact ratepayers. Point of order. I seek leave to table a letter and associated information related to Auckland and Whangārei. The letter is to Mayor Goff—my most recent one.SPEAKER: One of your letters—a letter that you've sent?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Chris Bishop: Point of order. I just want to query you on your statement that you just made in the middle of that question around significant feedback from members of the public around the behaviour of the Opposition during question time. You said that you'd made that point yesterday. I've looked back at what you actually said yesterday sir and you made a very general remark in which you said that you'd received significantly more public reaction to misbehaviour in the House than I've had for some time." which at least implied—or at least explicitly said—all of the House was to blame. And you now seem to be saying sir that basically it's the National Party's—the Opposition's—fault. I put it to you sir that when there is disorder in the House or misbehaviour it occurs not just from the National Party Opposition but from Labour members frequently using supplementary questions to take political flicks at the Opposition which of course will produce elements of disorder and frequently as has been pointed out by the chief whip for National using the opportunity of the asking of supplementary questions to take flicks at the Opposition.SPEAKER: OK well this is fairly easy to deal with. The first thing is if the member doesn't like replies from the Government where they feel that supplementaries are being used inappropriately then the member should bring it up at the time not days later or the following week.Chris Bishop: It was a minute later.SPEAKER: Order! Does the member want to stay? The other point that I'll make is that yesterday I was more generous than I was today as to the source or the reason for the complaints that I had been receiving. In fact if I had to identify one person for being the source of the loud noise which was the subject of complaint he's not currently here but it was the former member for Hamilton East. [Interruption] Mr Bennett.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker your final comment was out of order. We are rebuked often for referring to the absence of a member from the House which is exactly what you just did.SPEAKER: I apologise. I was looking for the member—I shouldn't have referred to his absence. I don't like criticising members in their absence but as far as that particular member is concerned his repeated inane interjections are the subject of correspondence to me.Chris Bishop: Point of order. We're going to get ourselves into a difficult situation here Mr Speaker. Is it now the case that if you agree with the correspondence into your office from members of the public—and by the way we have no way of verifying the veracity of that correspondence—you will—SPEAKER: All right the member will just take a seat. That's the end of that thank you."