Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill at its first reading. A reminder for those watching this conversation: this bill reflects the fourth bill in a long line of reforms undertaken by this Government in regards to three waters—a reform programme that has been broken from the start—and following the announcement of National's Local Water Done Well" policy on 25 February the Government subsequently made an announcement of their reset on 13 April which forms the basis for these significant changes. This Government has been working on this three waters reform programme for a very long time. Isn't it ironic that following the release of the Opposition's policy on how to deal with water in this country the Government reflects on their model and makes such significant changes!The concept that we heard from the first three bills from this Government reflected the fact that only a four-entity model would be the model that would deliver the outcomes required under Labour's three waters reform. However subsequently to that they have now decided to throw that up in the air and move to 10 entities—a model which is significantly different to the reform programme which they said was the only option in order to achieve the benefits that they were desiring. This goes to the heart of a Government that is continually backpedalling on a piece of reform that has significant implications for all New Zealanders not only for today but going forward for decades to come. The Minister the Hon Kieran McAnulty has introduced huge changes including the establishment also of a new funding body on the fly and is expecting to pass them in a shortened report-back process reinforcing the sloppy nature in which this law and these laws that have been passed already has become quite accustomed to under this Government.Yet despite all of this process and all of the opposition across this country Labour simply does not get it because they never bothered to listen to the feedback that was provided by the majority of New Zealanders across this country. The changes that this bill will bring into account are not only in regards to increasing the number of entities from four to 10 but also look to kick for touch the implementation date of this Government's reform by two years. This in itself is an indication that the Government are not confident in their own legislation and their own reform. Two more years of chaotic uncertainty will result and the ones that will pay the price of this extension and kicking for touch of reform that is required in order to improve infrastructure of water in this country will fall on our local communities. The pressure will also fall on our local government entities which are already under significant pressure and strain because of the chaotic nature of this three waters reform. Staff turnover is considerable. Staff are looking for other opportunities. They are not confident that this Government's reform programme will deliver the improvements needed for this country. There have been multiple opportunities as we traverse this journey where the Government could have taken on board feedback listened to our local communities and made the changes necessary that could have avoided where we are today.The Government has also included in regards to this amendment bill changes in relation to Te Mana o te Wai statements. One will remember the conversations that were had in regards to these statements which of course are only able to be prepared and input into by members of mana whenua in regards to three waters infrastructure that crosses over land and in particular private land. The feedback on other legislation that has been tabled in regards to this bill on the Table has said that that is not right that is not fair and that is not appropriate—that only one group has the ability to input into those statements. So as a result of that feedback the Minister has decided in his wisdom instead of modifying the Te Mana o te Wai statement process and allowing all stakeholders to have a voice to be able to input into those statements—all New Zealanders—he has instead added a new statement called a community priority statement. And as is often the case what it says on the tin is not what is inside the tin. When you have to add the words "priority statement" to the title it gives you a little bit of a sign of what will follow!When you dig into the legislation and you look at the wording in regards to these new community priority statements for water services you see under new section 145C inserted by clause 16 of the bill where it articulates what regional representatives groups must or may do in response to these statements subsection (3) says "The group may consider"—may consider—"the statement in preparing issuing or reviewing the group's statement of strategic and performance expectations". Subsection (4): "The group may consider the statement as part of any comments [in regards to these entities]". The key point of difference in regards to this is that when you look at the wording in the legislation under section 131 which refers to Te Mana o te Wai statements regional representative groups must take into account the feedback within those statements.There is a significant difference between the words "must" and "may" and when you try and prioritise in a hierarchy those two words it is very clear that the community priority statements are second class in regards to the hierarchy that they sit in in relation to Te Mana o te Wai statements. What does that say in regards to all members of our communities' being able to input into the process to ensure that water infrastructure is appropriate for our communities? Well I will leave that for New Zealanders to assess for themselves but the Minister has had ample opportunity to reflect and improve these statements and the opportunity has not been taken. Actually some will assess that the situation has been made worse—more complex than what the current state of play is at the moment. The select committee process which it has already been articulated will have a shortened report-back date will not allow and provide adequate review time or public consultation in regards to that.I lastly want to refer to a new aspect in this bill which is in regards to establishing a water services funding agency. One would expect after the many years of planning and review of this legislation that we wouldn't at this late stage on 22 June be introducing a new funding mechanism in regards to enabling this reform programme. This has been made up on the hoof and reinforces legislation which continues to be destined for failure. National opposes this bill.Debate interrupted."