McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. The first point that I would make is that if this was such a crowning glory for the Government wouldn't the Minister of Local Government want to use the whole time that he has—10 minutes—to explain why? Because ultimately I think that touches on something quite crucial here and it touches on exactly why we oppose this repeal bill: we oppose this repeal bill because it won't work. We oppose this for the very simple reason that this will not help. This will cost ratepayers more and it will not lead to more affordable water services that meet the regulatory requirements. That's not just us saying that; it is the Minister's own advice.It is quite clear that the only way to achieve the level of expenditure across all councils—noting that there are a very small number of councils that are in a particular position unique to themselves but on the whole across the board $185 billion needs to be spent. Councils cannot do it by themselves. Many are at their debt cap; they can't borrow more. Many councils aren't at their debt cap but represent communities that simply cannot afford to pay higher rates. What on earth are they going to do? They have to do the investment because this Government quite rightly is keeping the water regulator which will ensure that councils meet the minimum standards. That is something that the local government sector themselves welcomed and actually many said should have been in place years ago and I agree with them. So I at least congratulate the Government for keeping that but let's see what that will do in practice. We have a water regulator that will require councils to meet minimum standards. For some councils that will require significant investment almost immediately. What are those councils that can't borrow more going to do? What are those councils be they in lower socio-economic areas or rural areas with a low rate-paying base many of whom are on fixed incomes that can't afford to pay higher rates—what are they going to do? I've heard nothing to suggest that the Government has a solution to that other than allowing them to do council-controlled organisations. They already can and it hasn't worked. Look at Auckland; that's unaffordable. Look at Wellington; that has not worked. Many councils in the Wellington region as part of Wellington Water concede that something else has to be done. There is nothing new being proposed aside from ring-fencing of funding which will force councils to put rates up. It's not councils' fault; they will have no option. I absolutely oppose the language being used by the Minister saying that this will force councils to spend money on the necessities rather than the nice-to-haves. How offensive is that to hard-working councillors and mayors who are trying their hardest to make sure that they are investing in infrastructure with the limited means that they have? And here we have a Minister criticising their decisions while one hand is being tied behind the council's back and once this bill is repealed and the so-called replacement is brought in place then both hands will be tied behind their back. If we take the Minister on his word that there will all of a sudden be massive council-controlled organisations across the country with councils working together I would pose a very simple question which I hope that the Minister answers at committee stage: why would a council that is in a relatively good financial position voluntarily agree to work with a council that is at their debt cap has a very small number of ratepayers and simply cannot afford to do it? I am deeply concerned about a number of councils in particular. I am especially concerned about the Tararua District Council. The Tararua District Council which is part of northern Wairarapa and southern Hawke's Bay has 12000 ratepayers. Obviously there are more people living there but there are 12000 rating units in that area. They need to find $600 million over the next 30 years. That's not our numbers; that's derived from the council's own numbers. How the hell are they going to do it by themselves? The Government might say they won't be by themselves. So the next question is: who is going to voluntarily join with them? They are going to be left on their own high and dry with no capacity to pay for what they need. Now the Tararua District Council also has the fourth-largest roading network in the country something that they have to also service themselves and this was a cyclone-affected area. They have taken on considerable amounts of debt as a result of being hit by Cyclone Gabrielle. They cannot do it; I've used this example a number of times and the Minister has never given me a credible response as to how they are going to do what they need to do. They are going to be left high and dry and I think it's a disgrace.There are many other councils who by 2051 are going to be facing costs that ratepayers simply cannot afford and it is a legitimate question that deserves an answer: who would join with them? I'm not convinced that the entire Canterbury region would voluntarily join up as was proposed under the current settings in the affordable water reforms. I can imagine that Christchurch Selwyn and Waimakariri might join together but why the hell would they voluntarily accept Ashburton where without reform each individual ratepayer is facing $8690 each year by 2051 just for water? They have massive costs; they have a small population compared to other areas. I am not convinced that the larger areas that are in a better financial situation would voluntarily join with them. Listen to the Minister's language today at question time. He was asked whether he will guarantee that ratepayers will save money as a result of his repeal. He said it would be cheaper. Cheaper for who? Not for ratepayers but cheaper for them. And this touches on this Government's priorities; they're more than happy to give money away to landlords but won't invest in core key infrastructure. They have broken a promise. They stood here in the House—they went to every single district council in the country and said If you back us we'll back you." They said "We will help fund your infrastructure." It's not true. There's been no announcement of funding. There's been many a question about funding and at no point has the Government said "Yes we will." So here we have councils who are unlikely to have other councils join up with them left on their own. Some cannot borrow more because they're at their borrowing cap. The Government despite promising they would help fund it have now refused to do so. What are they going to do? Their short answer unfortunately is "nothing" because they won't have the money. We'll either have councils going bankrupt or councils not meeting their regulatory requirements in terms of water standards. That's a disgrace. The National Party started this process under the Hon Anne Tolley. Anne Tolley recognised that there was a problem and started this work. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta continued it on and then I took over and made some changes as a result of listening to the local government sector. It is telling that the National Party's rationale for this repeal focuses on mayors' comments at the start of the process not after the changes were made. Once those changes were made and it moved from four entities to 10 in a more regionalised model the majority of councils expressed support for it including many councils that had signed up to Communities 4 Local Democracy—who vehemently opposed the proposals—who came out after the changes in support. This repeal is unnecessary it is irresponsible and it is lazy. It is lazy because in politics you need to show leadership even when things aren't popular. What they are trying to do is cynical. They are saying—whenever you ask them why they won't guarantee that ratepayers will save money the answer is "That's a matter for the councils." Because later on when rate bills come in and people can't afford them they'll come to the Government and they'll say "What are you going to do about it?" and the answer will be "That's a matter for the local council". We hear it all the time; we're going to hear it in the future. They are setting them up; they are setting councils up promising them something they know they cannot deliver. Balance sheet separation under their plan is a myth. Councils will be left high and dry with no provisions for extra revenue and the Government's response will simply be "Well you're on your own.""