Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Well that was a manful attempt by David Clark but his heart wasn't in it and I think we can all agree on that. Let's be really clear what's happened here: this is the back-down bill. This is the bill in which the Government tries to pretend that this is what they wanted to do all along and that they've listened to communities and that now it's time to get with the programme and change around things. But this is a back down because they have faced a wave of hostility from around the country over the last two years as the three-waters roadshow has rumbled on and they have finally figured out that the public aren't buying what Labour is selling. This is the back-down bill.We were told for two years by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and then Kieran McAnulty that it had to be four entities we had to legislate all the councils to have their assets confiscated and we had to set up the big four mega-entities—There is no other way—there is no alternative." I even think the Minister might have uttered those words in the House: "TINA"—There Is No Alternative. We were told over and over again—and the Government ran these ridiculously contemptuous ads on TV to tell local government that they knew what was best for them—that there was nothing that could be done: "We had to do three waters." Local government said "Well actually how about you let us figure it out at a regional level? We're up for reform we're up for the rationalisation but we just want to keep our own assets and sort it out." The Government said "No no we know best. We can't do that. You've got to do the big four." Then they said "Well hang on a minute. How about you let us figure it out and you let us sort out the arrangements so that we can get some balance sheet separation and how about you just remove the mandatory co-governance provisions?" and the Government said "No no we know best. We've got to do it." Well now it turns out actually they're prepared to—as David Clark said "Oh we've listened—we've listened."—and they've changed their mind. Well good on them for listening; it just took two years. But anyway we welcome that. This is the back-down bill.Now David Clark says that the debate is essentially between Labour's new proposal the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill which amends legislation we passed only a few months ago—"Water Services 2.0"—and the status quo. Well that's not the debate. No one in this Parliament thinks that's the debate other than David Clark and no one in the public thinks that because everyone acknowledges the need for reform.So what do we agree on in Parliament? Well we agree on balance sheet separation so that you can get debt finance to fund the long-lived assets because councils can't do it by themselves. That's sensible. That is across both models proposed by National and by Labour. Do we agree on economic regulation? Yes we do. These are essentially natural monopolies. They're actually in some ways not dissimilar or any different to local electricity lines companies. They're natural monopolies that require economic regulation to get a rate of return. So we agree around that. We agree on water-quality regulation. In fact the starting point for water quality started under the last National Government. So we agree on all of that. We agree on regional groupings and we obviously don't like the big four entities that the Government started with.What do we disagree on? There are a number of elements and that's ultimately why we can't support this legislation. We disagree on a few things. The first is that the legislation confiscates the assets of the councils and says basically "We know best as central government. We're going to do it for you." Yes the Government has moved away from the big four model and moved to a regionalised model but it's still confiscation. It's still legislation that takes the assets and says that the Government knows best. Our preferred solution on this side of the House is to allow local councils and local communities to sort out how they're going to rearrange themselves so that they can meet the Government's water reform objectives and make sure that we can get improvements in water quality and get that economic regulation in place. That will require allowing local councils and local communities to have a go at working it out for themselves. It's not to say that central government doesn't or shouldn't have the back-stop powers in order to step in and make sure that we get the reforms that make sense but let's give them a go at it in the first instance. The Government has completely disregarded all of that. So yep we've got a more regionalised grouping but the Government's choosing the regionalised groupings for them. That I think is what many people in local councils and local communities find very offensive. That's the first thing.The second thing is: co-governance that is baked into the reforms. There's no change to that through this amendment bill. There's no change to the existing Act that is now in law. So the regional representative groups the representative boards: co-governance is baked in there. We regard that as wrong. We will get rid of that after 14 October if we have a mandate to do so. We regard that as wrong.Thirdly Te Mana o te Wai statements. This has flown under the radar. The co-governance stuff gets much of the attention but actually it's Te Mana o te Wai statements in the Act now that I think many people are waking up to. Only mana whenua can issue them—only mana whenua can issue them—and the water services entities must reply to them. So that actually creates an interesting situation. Only one group can issue them. They're not mandatory but I just went and looked it up before: the Act says they can issue them for mana whenua of particular rohe and the water services entities must respond. The scope of those statements is quite breathtaking or at least potentially quite breathtaking in its enormity. I think many people are waking up to what that does and I think people think it is wrong and we agree. It's not to say that Māori do not have rights and interests in water—they do. That actually is accepted—oh I see Grant Robertson is muttering but—Hon Grant Robertson: Oh no; I'm just recording the moment.CHRIS BISHOP: Well I've said this many times. I said it in the first second and third readings of the last bill—the one that you said was the real solution until this one turned up. They do and actually that goes across the Parliament because when National was in Government the Crown accepted through the Mighty River Power litigation in the Supreme Court—which led to the mixed-ownership model solution for the energy companies that the Crown owned—that Māori did have rights and interests in water. Now the question is how you give effect to that; that's actually the debate. The debate is not: do Māori have rights and interests in water? The debate is about how you give effect to that. Our view on this side of the House is that allowing only mana whenua to issue Te Mana o te Wai statements is wrong and it's not an appropriate way of giving effect to those rights and interests; nor by the way is the co-governance provisions that are baked into the legislation. So you do not have to go as far as the Government is going with its proposals in order to give effect to the Crown's obligations that are shared across the Parliament.So to return to where I started this bill is a back down. There's no real way of sugar-coating it. It's been a back down I think forced by local communities around the country. It has been quite striking to me when you drive round the place the "Stop Three Waters" signs that you see all over the place and who would have thought that what is actually quite a technocratic issue—at the end of the day we are talking about pipes and stormwater and clean fresh drinking water. I mean no one gets worked up about electricity lines—well maybe we used to back in the 1990s but no one really gets worked up now. It's been interesting the reaction and for that to be honest I do blame the Government because from the start this has been mis-sold the local government sector has been treated with a degree of contempt by many in central government and there's been a backlash to that; there's been a reaction to that.So do we need water reform? Yes we do. Do we need confiscation? No we don't. Do we need mandatory co-governance? No we don't. Do we need Te Mana o te Wai statements in the way they are formed? No we don't. Do we need balance sheet separation? Yes. Do we need economic regulation? Yes. Do we need water-quality regulation? Yes. Do we need more regionalised solutions that we let local communities come up with? Absolutely yes we do. Actually there's not so much between the parties on this and there's still time—there's still time—for Labour to come to the party of genuine local water reform. Thank you very much."