Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise as a member of the National Party and as a member of Parliament for North Shore on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. As my colleague Andrew Bayly outlined in his opening address this is the bill which looks to introduce the concept of economic regulation and consumer protection in regards to the four co-governed mega-entities that the Government are going to be establishing in order to manage the three waters infrastructure across this country. National will be repealing that bill when we are in Government in the future and as such we will also be opposing this bill. I'll outline this morning in regards to some of the context but I think it is important firstly to outline that the National Party do support the concept of sound economic and commercial regulation including economic and consumer protection in regards to water infrastructure. But the challenge here is that this legislation is applying that regulation to a four-entity co-governed model which we do not believe is the appropriate model in order to achieve the outcomes that we require in order to produce a safe a reliable and a sustainable water infrastructure model in this country. And so on that basis we will be opposing it. There are a number of issues within this bill that will be canvassed through the select committee process but what is clear is that the regulatory impact statement notes and I quote Over time it may become evident that scope or form of economic regulation is not in the best interests of water consumers." It is clear that this is a complex area and if we look at the challenges that the Government are facing at present the headwinds in which they are sailing into—into 2023—they have a huge agenda wide-ranging reform that is currently under way and the Prime Minister has indicated that that scope of the reform agenda and policy positions that the party are undertaking will be narrowed. But the concept of economic and consumer protection regulation in itself is a complex burden that will be placed upon the sector and why that is the case is because this does not currently exist today. And so the reality for us moving into a new model is going to create significant burden on top of all the other aspects of reform. Don't forget they are going to at the same time transition all the assets and liabilities out of 67 councils around the country into one of these four mega-entities. That in itself as we've seen play out in the conversations over the last 141 hours since the bill was passed on Thursday articulates the complexity and challenge that the Government is still trying to work through—i.e. what is even in scope in terms of those assets and transfers that will move into these new entities? And this bill is going to therefore have the regulation elements around that. The other aspect that we hear as the Minister outlined in his opening comments in regards to this bill is in terms of the basis or the case for change for this legislation. And as I've said continually no major party in this House believes that our water infrastructure in this country does not need to be improved. It does. The question is: how do we achieve that future state which will be a future state which is sustainable and achieve the outcomes that we require? The difference between the National Party's position and that of the Labour Government—and only the Labour Government because it is important to recognise that no other party within this Parliament other than Labour are supporting the current reform agenda on the table. And I think that is something as well across to New Zealanders watching that this isn't a bipartisan reform programme for one of the most fundamental aspects of human life which is the provision of water to our country. And so that is what it is. But I think that also sends a signal in terms of the fact that this reform agenda is not going to last very long. The element around the case for change is based upon the Scottish water model as the Minister said in his opening statements and the comments in regards to—the Minister quoted $180 billion of capital expenditure required in regards to that reform. I mean the assessment by the Scottish water authority has been reviewed continuously through the Water Services Entities Bill process and has on multiple occasions been found to be based on inaccurate assumptions. It is not comparable in terms of the New Zealand context and the concept or the comments in regards to the capital savings that are available in terms of achievable have also been assessed as they're not available in the New Zealand context. So the case for change is a house built upon sand. It is well known that when the Government stands up and uses these numbers they are simply unsubstantiated and not evidenced by independent assessment and that in effect just puts the whole case for change you know where it should be which is one that is not substantiated. The other element that you hear from the Government and the Minister articulated as well is the cost implications in regards to costs on consumers. He noted a 13-factor increase of water bills for rural consumers and a seven-factor increase for urban households. This is simply again in my view scaremongering the New Zealand consumer in regards to trying to create a case for change for a reform programme that has been destined to failure right from the start. An independent assessment undertaken in a number of councils across this country in regards to exactly this point you know: will the alternative models that have been put on the table by councils deliver the implication and the savings—Hon Stuart Nash: But nothing by National.SIMON WATTS: —in regards to water charges? And you can hear the Minister on the other side—Anna Lorck: Where's your plan?SIMON WATTS: —adding a little bit of comment and stuff like that and it's interesting because in the time that we've heard—Hon Stuart Nash: Where's your plan?SIMON WATTS: And you can hear the Minister you can hear them all saying—we've got the member from Tukituki there commenting in the background but they're only taking 60-second calls. Isn't it ironic on the day before this Parliament—Hon Stuart Nash: We've got a plan and you've spoken for eight minutes and provided no solution.SIMON WATTS: And I can hear the Minister again—Minister Nash is commenting again and he is outlining—but he hasn't taken a call because this Government this Labour Government on the day before this Parliament breaks is ramming through another piece of legislation taking the opportunity to undertake only 60-second calls while they ram through legislation which is strongly opposed by Kiwis across this country. This is a Government that is under pressure. This is a Government that is struggling in order to get any cut-through and this is another example of legislation which at a conceptual level has benefits but in terms of detail is significant overreach. And as I said it isn't going to last beyond next Christmas. The outline in regards to further implications in regards to the asset management considerations in regards to this bill—the councils have already submitted through the select committee process that they believe that what they've been told by Government and the numbers within the Government plans do not correlate with what the councils on the ground have seen. And we had submissions on the prior bills in regards to the capital expenditure required in order to undertake what is the future capital expenditure required in councils around this country. And the numbers that the Minister articulated around $180 billion simply don't correlate to where the councils believe the capital investment is required in order to improve their systems. And this bill in terms of the asset management plans that will be incorporated will in effect substantiate what that actual number is. And it's interesting that so far through this process the Government still does not know what exact assets will actually transfer to these new entities. Isn't that remarkable? After four to five years of planning they still do not know what assets will transfer from local councils into these four mega-entities. And that is testament to a fact that the complexity that this Government came into this was completely underestimated and also the fact that the bottom lines that the Government had in regards to the structuring of the reform solution for water infrastructure were based on a four-entity co-governed mega-entity model that had no basis—SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."