Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. ACT engaged constructively with the Government and with officials at the Department of Internal Affairs when the three waters reforms were first proposed because ACT agrees there is a problem with the condition of existing water infrastructure at many councils in many regions around the country. It's been run down through a lack of investment a lack of maintenance and there is a huge demand for growth particularly in the major metros like Auckland where the need to service land for future urban development and the lack of infrastructure services mean that land cannot be offered for housing. That is inducing an upward pressure on land prices and making housing unaffordable. These reforms as proposed by Labour will not address that.I'd just like to come back to the comments of some of the Labour members. The member Naisi Chen sat on the committee for the 34 days of the hearing and claimed that the committee had offered consideration for those 34 days and that the bill that's been beaten into shape somehow addresses the concerns of most of the submitters who were opposed to this amendment. I would disagree with that. I want to offer a perspective on the previous Labour speaker's commentary particularly around water as a taonga. Now water is important. Water sustains life on earth as we know it. But if we're going to confuse water having a spiritual dimension with the metaphysical with the biophysical then we're never going to solve this country's problems; we're never going to be able to build the infrastructure we need deliver water for communities for businesses for farmers in the places that we need it because there will always be a cultural veto based on this concept of water and its spiritual dimensions expressed through Te Mana o te Wai which is the principal way of allocating water resources to find through the hierarchy of water legislation this Government has passed.Now I want to come to some specific problems with this bill. This bill reforms the Water Services Entities Act passed in 2022 which established four water services entities. After listening to the Opposition ACT and all those communities which said Hey you shouldn't take our assets and put them in four water entities." the Government announced "OK we'll do 10. We'll do 10." Well taking local community assets and putting them in either four or 10 entities and removing control from democratically elected councils and their ratepayers is unacceptable. The High Court agreed with the Water Users' Group that took an action that it amounts to confiscation and confiscation without compensation is expropriation. That's called theft Labour—theft of these assets.That's what the court ruled. But of course Labour has a majority. They can pass any laws they like that confiscate private property and that's what they've done through the Water Services Entities Act. This bill only continues that expropriation.Now there are other problems apart from the theft of local assets. Ten entities—well officials and the Minister accepted that the economic efficiencies gained by having four entities are significantly diluted by having to stand up ten entities all of the back office all of the chief executives and all of the overheads required to stand up ten entities.ACT does not agree that this cost is warranted. Local councils who own the existing assets could be supported in other ways such as by encouraging them to form council-controlled trading organisations like Auckland's Watercare. They could be encouraged to form alliances programme alliances voluntary associations. They could be encouraged and facilitated to carry out joint procurement of major capital programmes and maintenance operations contracts. They don't have to be or shouldn't have to be water services that have adjoining regional boundaries which is required by this bill. I mean we only have to look at Christchurch's Citycare a council-controlled organisation to see that they are able to undertake water maintenance contracting all around the country not just in Christchurch. So the rationale that Labour has applied to this to support this contention that water service entities must have regional boundaries adjoining them is a fallacy.Now I want to come to the regional representative groups. If this bill was focused on water infrastructure better management raising the funds financing these big projects creating a regulatory system that puts some rules in place so that local government and asset owners were actually meeting their community needs providing for depreciation and funding growth then ACT could probably have supported the intention of this legislation But introducing co-governance entities—regional representative groups made up of a dozen or more councils a dozen or more 50:50 iwi and hapū representatives—actually wrecks the entire outcome of this policy.There is no justification for it. I will remind the Labour members of this House what the former Minister of Local Government Nanaia Mahuta stated in answer to a written question from ACT: Simon Court to the Minister of Local Government: "Does the Minister believe that Māori have rights and interests in three waters assets built after 1840; if so why?" The Minister replied "To my knowledge Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those or ratepayers in their respective community of interest." There you go. Take co-governance take allocating seats on boards based on ethnicity out of this reform agenda because it's not necessary. It's not needed. There's no legal need. There's no Waitangi claim which insists that it be in there. The former Minister of Local Government herself stated there is no interest above that of members of a community. That is why ACT says we can do three waters reform without co-governance.ACT agrees that councils and their trading organisations should have much greater access to many more different types of funding and financing arrangements. Currently the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act provides for councils for example to access funding by standing up a special purpose vehicle—an off-the-balance-sheet fund to build infrastructure. In fact Wellington Water is in the process of gaining approval through that very Act—the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act—to stand up a special purpose vehicle to fund the upgrade of the Moa Point waste-water treatment plant. The legislation already exists. ACT believes it could be improved but that the funding and financing and the balance sheet separation is already available to local government.I want to come to the implementation. The cost of implementing these reforms has ballooned from $2 billion initially estimated to now $3 billion. For the cost of procuring a single information system over $500 million has been budgeted plus maybe $100 million more in contingency. It turns out that every council in New Zealand already has an asset management system. I worked in Auckland Council—there's a large international provider that has allocated an asset ID number to every manhole every manhole lid and you can go on Auckland Council's geographic information system right now and you can click on a manhole and a pipe anywhere in the city and you can get the asset information about it. But this Government reckons spending $500 million on a new compulsory IT system for councils is necessary. Not only that—this Government is keeping on three redundant chief executives on a pay of between $600000 and $800000 a year just in case a few spare chief executives are needed who will be made redundant by the passing of this legislation.ACT does not support this bill passing. We will repeal it and replace it with ACT's infrastructure policy should we have the opportunity."