Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): The speaker who just took his seat—Stuart Smith—said this is a bill to get New Zealand back on track. This is yet another example of a Government that is taking New Zealand backwards. We see this through this bill. Up and down the country before the election parties of the then Opposition paraded around telling people across the land that they were going to restore local decision-making and democracy to our water services and that they were going to relieve the cost burden. Labour will not be supporting this bill because in fact on both of these counts this bill goes backwards. This bill imposes more costs on the ratepayers of New Zealand. Despite the rhetoric of what we're hearing from members—and I'll go into it in some detail—actually there is nothing in this bill to give local councils any comfort that they are going to be in charge of their own destinies when it comes to this.So let's talk about that local decision-making the much-vaunted local decision-making that was paraded around the country prior to the election. One of the things that we know is that the Government talked big about the Affordable Water Reforms alleging they undermined local decision-making but this bill that we've got fails to provide for community involvement in the preparation of the water services plans that sit within this legislation.Under this bill the community—and I think this is very important for people to understand—will have no guaranteed right to be part of the process where their local councils prepare the central government – mandated water services plans. I think that's something that people need to understand very clearly—that there is no guaranteed right for people to have that local say in these water services plans.There's a major gap in this bill and this is highlighted by the bill providing that the consultation must occur to establish join or amend council-controlled organisations that are to deliver those plans. The obligation to consult does not extend beyond that. It does not extend to the water services plans itself; it is merely around the vehicles that will be putting together those water services plans. So anyone who is sitting out there in viewer land thinking that upcoming they're going to have a chance—and a guaranteed chance—to have a say on their local water services plan I'm afraid that is not the case. You may well have been misled. You may well have been led down the garden path by a Government that went on the campaign hustings saying one thing but has come to the House with a piece of legislation that does the exact opposite.But it does not stop there. One of the things that we know in terms of the vehicle being what is required to be consulted on rather than the plans there's also an obligation to consult imposed on the secretary of DIA—or the Department of Internal Affairs—when exercising the power to make rules in relation to the water services plans. But the secretary of DIA is obliged to consult with named organisations when considering the water services plans submitted by local councils. This is not the ratepayers. This is not everyday people in the street who thought they were going to have a say on what those local water plans would say. There is lots of mandatory consultation embedded in here but none of it is directed at communities. This is not about communities having their say; this is about a Government putting up a bill that is maintaining that control.The Government does retain the whip hand in this and I think they need to be very clear with New Zealanders that that's what they're doing. We'll go through some of the obligations that are imposed on councils and what councils had to say. But here's the cracker because the Government made sure they got in here the ability to appoint a Crown facilitator for recalcitrant councils in addition to appointing a Crown water services specialist—so Do what we say or we'll take over." That is what this legislation is saying. So this much-vaunted return of democracy to local communities was nothing but a sham. It is not hiding in this bill. It is not there.Now let's turn our attention to costs because that's one of the other key things that up and down the land the Opposition—as they then were; they nowadays call themselves the Government for the next two years—went around the country telling people that they were going to reduce costs. They talk about how much we spend on it. That is because we have to as a country spend money to upgrade our waters infrastructure. This is not some kind of thing we can put on the "never never" and kick the can even further down the road.What this bill has done is impose a whole lot of compliance on council but nowhere is there a mention of funding; nowhere is there the ability for councils to actually carry this out. And who is going to pay for it? That still is not clear. Remember let's go back to that ability for the Crown to appoint that facilitator; for the Crown to walk in and take over if they don't do exactly what the Government says. So impose a whole lot of very unrealistic expectations around time lines and what is expected provide zero funding but say you'll walk in and take over if you need to. That's what we're seeing in this bill.So what does this mean for New Zealanders in terms of cost? Because someone has to pay for this—that the infrastructure needs to be upgraded. Let's look around our country. Let's go through some numbers: 15.8 percent rates increases that's Tauranga City Council; 17 percent that's Kāpiti Coast; let's look at 18.5 percent that's Wellington; and 14.75 percent that's Kaikōura. These are the kinds of rates increases that New Zealanders around the country are facing because—and councils are saying this themselves—they have to fund their three waters work. That is what this means for New Zealanders.So we've seen this much-vaunted community democracy sham. What we've seen is imposed costs on New Zealanders in terms of increased rates and having to dig into their pockets because this was a Government that decided it was going to be fun; that dog-whistled some billboards to put up around the country in the lead-up to the general election and parties who took great delight in doing that and we're seeing many provisions of that in this bill.But the problems with this bill don't stop with the fact it doesn't return local decision-making; it doesn't stop with the fact it's imposing costs New Zealanders. Let's have a look at the fact that it fails to protect public ownership. Under Labour's legislation there were protections around public ownership—that was not something that Government members were even willing to countenance. One of the things that we said is that we need to ensure that these are assets that stay in public ownership—this is in the public interest to do so.So we have a Government that is imposing requirements on council with no money to do it and a cost that has to be borne through rates increases yet won't protect public ownership. I can add: I know what those things usually add up to. I need a Government member to stand in this House today and give an ironclad guarantee that they are not setting up to hock off our water assets and get them out of public ownership. Because the fact they would not commit to that is something to be afraid of.Now in my last less to a minute if New Zealanders needed any greater evidence of the fact that this wasn't a return to local decision-making it has happened in this House this afternoon. We had a member of the executive in Simon Court—who is an Under-Secretary who was sworn in as a member of the executive—stand up and talk about sacking councils if they fail to provide what was expected of them. This is what members of the executive of this Government—how much they value local democracy and local decision making.That is the very vibe that is entwined through this bill. It is a bill that does not protect local democracy; in fact it erodes it. It is a bill that imposes cost and it's a bill that fails to protect public ownership."