McAnulty Kieran; Court SimonHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. In response to the comments and questions from Mr Watts specifically around his proposed Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 407 the flexibility of may consider" means that entities can determine the most appropriate response to a statement. Resource and effort can be scaled according to the nature of the statements and entities' particular circumstances. This makes absolute sense to me. This is an issue that was traversed in great detail at the select committee stage. It was deemed by members of the committee that it was important to ensure that people that did not have a close connection to the area in question could not provide a statement of their own and the deputy chair of the committee had particular examples where that may happen.In regard to the difference between community statements and Te Mana o te Wai we won't be supporting the SOP because we as a Government wish to be consistent with the view of the previous National Government in 2014 when they established the requirement for Te Mana o te Wai. They themselves—at the time when in Government—recognised that there is a role for this and it is a requirement of this Government to be consistent with that and that is what's being proposed in the bill. I would propose that this is pure politicking. I would also propose that it is—Hon Member: Oh hypocritical!Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —quite telling that—point of order. Point of order? CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Point of order the Hon Kieran McAnulty.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: There are very few things that you cannot accuse members of being. I've just been accused of that and I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I didn't actually hear any words. If any member over there has used a word that should rightfully cause offence to the Minister could they please stand withdraw and apologise. Well in the absence of that carry on.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well that says it all. To Mr Simpson's points the points in the bill around potential mergers and his question around listening to the sector all the changes that are in this bill have come about as a result of listening to the sector and that includes the provision that allows for mergers. Councils have asked for this to be included in the bill so that in the future if they themselves choose that it is in their community's interest to merge they would like a mechanism to be included in the bill. We have listened to the sector. That is why these changes are being made.Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The members may scoff but I can guarantee they have not visited as many councils as I have. Many months ago I challenged Mr Watts to visit councils and sit with them and listen to them. He didn't. So the point here is that what they've asked for—they've said we can't do this by ourselves. This country has met $185 billion. When I was in Selwyn speaking to that council they told me themselves that they can't do it by themselves. They recognised across that they collectively could do this; individually they can't. There are many councils—all 55 rural and provincial councils—that I met in person. They all told me one simple thing: they need reform. They need reform and they can't do it by themselves. That is what this bill does. They had concerns about four. They are much more comfortable with 10.Here is a challenge for those members tonight: tell us what they're going to do and show us how that adds up. We've asked them to do that for months. They haven't. They can't because their plan does not add up.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair and Minister McAnulty thank you for the opportunity to describe an alternative vision about how we solve the problem of funding financing and delivering three waters infrastructure. Now let's just start with the bill—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Court that will be within the confines of Part 1 of the bill?SIMON COURT: Absolutely Mr Chair. Problems with the bill: it's the latest in a series which seeks to reform three waters infrastructure the way it's delivered and operated. Despite the limited time frame to consider this bill which transforms the four-entity model to a much less efficient and more expensive 10-entity model as the Minister himself was happy to confirm in the House at select committee—much more expensive much less efficient but you know that's what Labour's come to in its dying weeks of its six-year term.Minister why on earth did a member of the Labour Party sitting on that committee think—given the limited time available—it was sensible to try to introduce some kind of collective bargaining fair pay agreement thing into a water services bill that would bind all future water services companies? Minister I mean the explanation—I'm looking heavenward because I don't think there's anywhere else this could come from; it doesn't make any sense except for it to be maybe a bolt of lightning.Minister this bill proposes to amend an Act only passed eight months ago—eight months ago—to fanfare by a Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta who even though that Minister had claimed co-governance ethnic representation on boards 50 percent of the seats allocated on the regional representative groups that will govern the three waters entities must go to iwi Māori because of an intrinsic relationship that they have with water.Now let's be clear: the State and its agents local government treated iwi Māori hapū whānau and marae terribly. When it comes to building infrastructure like sewage treatment plants right in front of the marae like they did at Māngere in the 1960s destroying their shellfishing grounds—treated them terribly. Now we have the Resource Management Act—whatever you think of it—which weighs up the needs of people and property owners and customary rights holders against the need to build infrastructure and that would never be allowed today. But using that type of example or reasoning about intrinsic relationships with water to put 50 percent of the representatives on regional representative groups that they must be iwi Māori makes no sense.Even the former Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta said "To my knowledge Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those [of] ratepayers within their respective communities of interest." That's it Minister—co-governance is done. But no this Government's persisted.So what would ACT do? ACT is a positive party. We're looking for practical solutions. You know there's a lot of stuff in the three waters reforms that ACT would agree with. It's important that we have better funding and financing mechanisms. It would be very helpful that councils and local government entities that are failing as asset owners have more technical support. Maybe that means being part of a larger entity but doing it by stealth pretending it wasn't going to be compulsory then making it compulsory pretending "Oh four entities and iwi co-governance is the solution; oh no now it's 10 but it's inefficient."—I mean Minister come on. Whatever you go on to do in your next career Minister this will not be your finest moment.That's why ACT is here to help Minister—that's why ACT is here to help. Here's an amendment to the bill: Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 400. Rather than having to face down these local councils when you go back to Wairarapa Minister—you have to face your local council saying "Why are you taking our assets Minister?"—you can adopt ACT's SOP: give each territorial authority each council one vote per 50000 on the entities. Let them retain ownership and control Minister. There you go—there's SOP 400 an amendment to the bill. Instead of forcing iwi co-governance—complex unnecessary unfounded even according to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—well ACT says you can give respectful representation consultation and input to mana whenua Minister.You can adopt the model that says in the Auckland super-city plan—one which I participated in—where as a representative of Auckland Council I had to go and represent Auckland Council talking about infrastructure plans that involved cleaning up old rubbish tips in the coastal area to the 19 mana whenua representatives. Because many of them do have genuine concerns about the way the State—or its branch local government—treats them. [Bell rung] Mr Chair just a couple more things to get through.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Simon Court.SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr Chair. So there are other opportunities such as establishing a mana whenua forum or having a mana whenua representative on a governing body. That is why ACT proposes on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 401 to amend clause 10. "Each entity's regional representative group must include territorial authority representatives." and "One non-voting mana whenua representative must be appointed to provide advice on whether provisions of any relevant Treaty settlement Act may affect the operation of the water services entity." Because ACT is a party that respects property rights.We respect customary rights and where property rights have been infringed then what ACT would say is that we need to recognise that but that is not through allocating voting rights to iwi Māori based on their whakapapa and somehow claiming that that addresses some grievance that is better addressed—more honestly addressed; more openly and truthfully addressed—through a Treaty settlement process. Where an entity that has customary rights in water or that has had their customary rights infringed by the State has an opportunity to seek redress through the Waitangi Tribunal rather than having co-governance imposed on—let's be honest—pipes manholes and sewage treatment plants Minister. I mean it sounds mad when you actually say it out loud doesn't it? For the voters and for the people listening at home.Then I want to come to another amendment—ACT has thought deeply about this we'll get through it Mr Chair. Amendment to clause 10 proposing to insert clause 10A: The appointment of territorial representatives. Council representatives may be revoked by a council. In other words if they appoint someone who's not suitable then council can pull them off. Whereas at the moment they have to be proposed and it's actually up to the regional representative group whether they accept or reject the nominee. They might keep someone on who's really not helping their local community—really not representing them—because it's politically convenient to the regional representative groups that will essentially be unfortunately compromised on the day their established Minister under this legislation.So what ACT says: we should amend this bill so that the representatives on the regional representative groups for water service entities council-controlled organisations—whatever they are in the future—must be democratically accountable back to their communities. Without democratic legitimate one-person - one-vote or the ability of the people to recall their representatives Minister the water service entities will lack any political or popular legitimacy—if you hadn't noticed Minister judging by all the "Stop Three Waters" signs up and down the country. There you go there's a proposed amendment to clause 10.Now we're going to get through this very quickly Minister. Pretty much if you accept these amendments I can have a chat to my caucus and leader—we might even support the bill passing. Very simple amendments: restore democracy; respect mana whenua but not through co-governance; let councils own the entities; one share for 50000.Then we come to this one. We want to amend a further clause Minister: clause 11A the "Territorial authority owner may leave Water Services Entity". Who knew that a council or a shareholder or an asset owner that becomes part of a larger corporate a council-controlled organisation a regional water authority a water service entity might decide Minister that they're really really unhappy with the way their assets have been managed for their small or large community as part of a larger entity. They might decide to leave and go and join another water service entity. I mean the ACT Party believes that if you want to take your assets and your property and go and enter into contract agreements with someone else the State shouldn't stop you.In fact if Auckland Council wants to get together with Wellington—I mean I don't know why they would; if anyone's seen all the water running down the streets in Wellington you'd know that their council has failed—or conversely if Waikato District Council wants together with Auckland and Northland which they've said they would Minister. They're not allowed to under this bill Minister. But with ACT's proposed amendment to clause 11A on SOP 404 councils that want to leave an entity because they're not getting good service or value for money—because their communities are not getting the service they expect—can leave and join another entity or just go out on their own. Because maybe councils like Whangarei District Council which are cash flow - positive and which are going to lose out by tens or hundreds of millions of dollars through this legislation Minister would prefer to go it alone; back themselves; trust their engineers and planners; trust their own ratepayers. Minister I'd love you to respond to this. This is practical stuff. ACT is here to help Minister."