McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you Madam Speaker thank you very much indeed.I think the National Party might be regretting giving Maureen Pugh a call on this—for her to claim that this is a solution looking for a problem" sums the National Party's position altogether. They have had their heads in the sand throughout this debate refusing to accept that there is a problem and refusing to accept that there is something that needs to be done. Everyone except the National Party accepts that there is something that needs to be done. There a $185 billion problem facing this country and then they laugh—without even realising it proving my point. Simon Watts: Independent experts say that is overstated.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: They say it is overstated. Well I would point them to the Water Industry Commission for Scotland report I would point them to the peer-reviewed Farrierswier report and I would point them to the peer-reviewed Beca Group report that have indicated that New Zealand communities need to fund $180 billion worth of infrastructure over the next 30 years.Every single council that I have visited have said that they cannot do it by themselves. So for Maureen Pugh to stand up tonight and for her mates to continue bickering while I make a factual statement shows that they are completely out of touch when it comes to this.Now I have sat here and listened to every single contribution to this debate. Throughout the National Party's contributions I listened very carefully and I listened in hope and I listened waiting for a solution to this issue. Well I stand here very disappointed. What this bill does is it presents a solution to this massive financial burden facing our communities.I heard Simon Watts take umbrage with something that the Minister said. He misquoted her and tried to spin it around in—I must admit—a rather clever way. What the Minister said was pointing to the National Party that that side has no alternative; fact. What Simon Watts said is that there are alternatives; that's also a fact. He went on to list said alternatives; not once did he say that the National Party had a policy and not once did he commit his party to those alternatives he listed. So here we are back at the status quo.As Associate Minister of Local Government by visiting 54 rural and provincial councils I asked them a very simple question. "Can you do this by yourselves?" is what I asked. None of them said they could. Simon Watts projects himself as the saviour of local government; he clearly hasn't engaged with them. I'll give the House an example. He says that their policy is to "repeal and replace" three waters—with what? "Repeal and replace" they say their policy is. Well I would say to the National Party they better ring their volunteers in Waikato and Coromandel and Wairarapa and much of the South Island who are still showing billboards that say "Repeal and reverse"—even their own members don't know that their policy's changed. But the fact that they have changed their position on this bill says quite a bit.Originally when this bill was first proposed the National Party pulled out the old tripe that said "This is stealing assets." I see Maureen Pugh dived into that pool earlier. They said "We will repeal and reverse." Then they realised that actually everyone except them recognises there's a problem so they quietly changed their policy to "repeal and replace". But what they are neglecting to tell the New Zealand public is what with. This bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member is an experienced member. I have asked him informally to return more closely to the bill and I will now ask him to do that.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you Madam Speaker. What this bill does is it actually provides a solution—a solution that is the only one outside that of the ACT Party of this Parliament.Now I don't have much in common with the ACT Party—I've said this quite a bit—but I do respect them because they actually come with alternative solutions. The issue that I have with the solution that the ACT Party proposed in response to this bill was that they are proposing to share the GST on new developments with councils. Good on them for coming up with something alternative; a valid contribution to this debate. But through their own costings that will provide $1 billion per year. They will solve a 30-year problem 150 years too late. That is unfortunate.The reason that this bill proposes what it does is it recognises that councils cannot do this by themselves. It recognises that even at a regional level whilst that may work in some parts of the country and I recognise those councils that have put effort into putting forward an alternative proposal there are many councils that still miss out—the majority of whom are rural councils; the areas that this party purports to support yet won't come up with a solution to help them out. They are happy to leave them with $100 million which their small rate paying base cannot fund.The key to this issue is that in order to find the economies of scale and an affordable way to do this you need balance sheet separation. We could do what Matt Doocey proposed in an earlier debate but I noticed stayed away from today—Matt Doocey proposed an alternative and good on him. But I note that he didn't say it today and probably because he was told he shouldn't—it's a broader proposal as well: that the Government should kick in with 50 percent; similar to the Waka Kotahi proposal similar to funding assistance rate. The problem with that is Matt Doocey was at the time committing the National Party to $92.5 billion bill when they are proposing $11 billion a year of tax cuts. It didn't add up and that's why he didn't mention it again tonight.We were asked by Nicola Grigg to show us the figures that we were referring to—this cost. It has been provided by experts and peer-reviewed by two reports. I don't think Nicola Grigg realised that by doing so she revealed to the House that she hasn't actually read the proposals.We also heard a few things that I thought were quite telling. We saw tonight that the National Party are opposing this on the basis of co-governance. I am proud to stand on in support of this bill on co-governance and I'll give one simple example. In my tour of 54 councils one councillor stood up and opposed co-governance—one. That was council No. 41. When I said to that councillor "I've visited 40 councils before this. This is the first time that someone has raised an opposition to co-governance. I want you to be aware of it." He wasn't aware he sat down and I haven't heard about co-governance since.This should have been a lesson for Simon Watts who appeared to the Local Government New Zealand conference in Palmerston North and rallied against co-governance—didn't get a clap because he didn't read the room. The local government sector is in favour of proposals in this bill.We are on the side of local government in the respect that we have come forward with a solution. The one thing that local government told me is that they can't do it by themselves which is exactly what the Opposition is proposing. The National Party are proposing the status quo ignoring the problem kicking the can down the road proposing the exact thing that councils do not want.I am proud of the way that this Government my colleagues especially the Nanaia Mahuta who has listened to the concerns set up a working group made up of local government representatives took on those proposals and took on the proposals and the recommendations made by select committee. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few amendments and adjustments that come through the committee of the whole House stage because this is a sincere attempt to improve this bill and make it work.The alternative is clear and the New Zealand people must realise. For all their articulate speeches and for all Simon Watts' yelling they have no policy in this area. Their policy is the status quo; the very thing that councils say that they simply cannot afford to do and by cannot afford they mean rates will go up and ratepayers will suffer. I commend this bill to the House."