SpeechDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. What a mess this Government has got us into on three waters. What a mess has been made by stripping democratic control from our own water system. When the councils were responsible if they made decisions that people didn't support they could simply have been voted out. Instead the Labour Government has stripped away water and councils. They've created a State-established monopoly in these mega-entities.Soraya Peke-Mason: What's your plan?DAMIEN SMITH: I have the plan. ACT cannot be accused of not having a plan—and that's why we're the fastest-growing party in the country because people are hearing what we're saying—and it is infrastructure-based. We're allowed to have an alternative opinion so let me purport it.Now they want to create yet another regulatory body to rein them in. They've created a monster. Now they need to keep it under control and leash it up through economic regulation and pricing that I would say that even Mr Clark knows doesn't make sense and it's heading towards another Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act moment. It all sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. There's a risk that without sufficient independent scrutiny the entities will act inefficiently this Government says. The Labour Party's philosophy is—guess what!—what better way to improve efficiency than another hefty bureaucracy? But I think Kiwis see through this and I think the time has come for the public to have their say.Kiwis want the Government to show a bit of sense with their spending and to make sure that money gets to the right places where it's needed most. But this Government is determined to spend on middle-managers and top-heavy bureaucracies. The Government has talked at length about the three waters reform keeping prices down. They even said that without the reforms our rates would rise by $9000 per year. And then later it came out in the wash that these numbers simply didn't reflect reality. Now even with the reforms officials are warning that water bills could increase significantly without regulation.So do we need yet another regulatory body in the Commerce Commission? How many new regulatory bodies has this Government crammed into the Commerce Commission? We've got the Grocery Commissioner we've got the petrol regulator we've got the new Fonterra regulator and now we've got a new water regulator. But wait there's more. I feel like I'm getting déjà vu here—hasn't this Government already set up a water regulator? Taumata Arowai was established as a water regulator last year as part of these reforms. This Government has set up so many regulators and commissioners that I feel like I'm singing The 12 Days of Christmas just listing them: the fuel regulator the grocery commission the airports the lines companies the gas companies the Fonterra regulator the electricity regulator and two water regulators—two water regulators.The Commerce Commission has gone from a corrector of market inefficiencies to the strong arm of the Government's market interference which I'm sure Mr Clark would appreciate.Dr James McDowall: It's all gone wrong.DAMIEN SMITH: Perhaps this is where it's gone wrong. Under this Government it would be more accurate to call it the Communism Commission".But back to the bill at hand. I'm afraid to say that ACT can't support this bill. ACT rejects the three waters reforms as a whole and is committed to repealing them. The reforms are an exercise in forced centralisation and a Treaty settlement by stealth. These reforms are stripping power away from local communities and putting it in the hands of mega-entities which are now being sought to be reined in by this bill.We've heard that 31 councils representing 1.2 million people have signed up in opposition to these reforms as proposed. That is incredible and it's no wonder as to why. Surely it's a sign of bad relations and bad reforms that before the reforms are even completed the bodies they've set up need to be reined in. If you look at the law and if it's passed it will allow the Commerce Commission to regulate the rate of price increases and even impose short-term revenue caps to mitigate the risk of price shocks in entities that are established. The regulator is trying to avoid the sharp and embarrassing price-hike scenario in the first few years of the reform system. So basically this isn't pure regulation or pure pricing management; this is to stop any embarrassing pricing decisions inside the entities which could make the Government look bad. That is not economic and regulatory policy that we should be buying into in New Zealand.The economic regulation of the new three waters would look into pricing practice for consumers and officials would have water charges which would affect new corporations. Water services entities are unaccountable non-democratic organisations. They have little or no competition and little or no likelihood of a substantial increase in competition. This is a step backwards. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee we need to really look at the dynamics of that situation.It's a nebulous principle also that the commissioner and the Government Minister have to look at the principles of the Treaty and take into account climate change at the same time when setting the price around water.I said that these Government approaches to regulation and the three-water reforms are like The 12 days of Christmas. We now have four mega-entities three hefty bills two new water regulators one determined Minister 50 percent iwi appointees in regional representative groups 31 councils representing 1.2 million people opposed and a partridge in a pear tree.ACT opposes this bill its excessive regulation its non-democratic leashing of the four water companies and its nebulous approach to leveraging the principles of the Treaty around economics. That is not suitable. Price fixing is in the hands of those entities. At the moment I don't think there's any experience in setting regulatory opinions.So ACT has an alternative infrastructure plan which would allow the community control of water assets and to improve the necessary infrastructure to ensure safety and efficiency on water allocation. We would provide for councils to enter voluntary assured-service agreements gaining the benefits of scale while retaining local ownership and control and to establish long-term 30-year central government – local government payment systems and partnerships to put water infrastructure upgrades tailored to specify in any area and in any local authority. We would also put in plan rateable charges that the community can assess and ensure are commensurate with the infrastructure that they require.It's really kind of Barbara Edmonds to say that David Seymour said that the making the bill good is something that is the job of the select committee but David has always told us as well that sometimes you just walk to the shredder and stick it in there and start again. All ACT wants for next Christmas is a new local government Minister and to repeal these three waters reforms which have the nation offside with the Labour Party—Jamie Strange obviously knows how that feels. Thank you."