McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. The issue facing this country in regards to water services is one to the tune of $185 billion. It is quite telling I feel in a speech where the Minister introduces a bill that will repeal a structure that will save ratepayers thousands of dollars a year come 2051—no details as to how his proposal will save ratepayers the same no detail at all. Because the issue that the Government has is the same issue that they had throughout the campaign: they've promised everyone everything and eventually they won't be able to deliver.They promised that local control can be maintained. They've promised that local ownership can be maintained and they've promised that balance sheet separation will be a key feature of it. Yet we've seen no details as to how that is going to happen. And that is very consistent with the history of the National Party's position on water reform. Originally it was: We will repeal." When it was pointed out the cost that the status quo would impose on ratepayers they changed their view to: "Repeal and replace." We asked them a very simple question: "Replace with what?" And here we are today with a repeal bill being introduced with no details whatsoever as to what the replacement will be. I feel it is quite simply because they cannot deliver on all the things they have promised—they cannot deliver it.A very simple question for the Minister of Local Government which I look forward to hearing at the committee stage is: how is he going to deliver balance sheet separation when the very advice from his own department says he cannot have direct council control ownership and balance sheet separation? We saw alternatives put forward during the debate—and I will give Communities 4 Local Democracy credit and I recognise that some of those mayors are in the Parliament tonight. At least they came up with an alternative. Throughout the debate the National Party had no alternative and lo and behold what they signalled when they announced the repeal is very similar to—almost exactly the same as—what Communities 4 Local Democracy put forward. And good on them they've been effective in their advocacy. However my concern is that on the Department of Internal Affairs website there is advice for the Minister that says that approach will not work and will not deliver balance sheet separation which is a critical part of ensuring that water services are done affordably.Now I can see this is a confusing complicated debate. It is very technical and the solutions are convoluted but it doesn't mean that this Parliament should allow the issue to be pushed to the side downplayed and left for future councils to deal with. Because that is the reality. What the Minister is setting up is that when unaffordable rate bills come for many councils he will be able to say "That's a council issue." Right throughout this debate when the original reform proposals were made the National Party promised councils that they would help them pay for it. They went around the country they said "Don't support the water reforms because we will do it differently and we will help you pay." Well that is a broken promise. That is a promise that they never intended to deliver and they haven't delivered on now.You only need to look at statements made by senior members like Matt Doocey who stood up and promised councils in this House—in fact I believe it was in this seat. He stood up in this House and said to councils "We will help you pay for it if we are elected." Well they're elected now and there is no help. There is no financial support. And when it comes to affordability for ratepayers they are being sold a dud. It's the mayors and it's the councillors and it's the ratepayers who will cop it. Because councils cannot do this by themselves. They cannot do it without balance sheet separation. Mayors and councillors will be forced to increase rates they will cop it from ratepayers and ratepayers will cop it in the back pocket. All of this could be avoided if the Government was upfront with New Zealanders and said "If we want balance sheet separation you cannot have direct council control."But even now in the face of advice from their own departments that said they cannot do it they are ignoring that fact. This will not work. And when ratepayers face bills they can't afford they can look back on this day and see how that came about."