Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Just made it in time. We are doing exactly as a coalition what we said we will do what we campaigned as you just heard on repealing this legislation which was I think you would have to say deeply unpopular and deeply divisive. We've heard a lot of different things from the Opposition benches about why this shouldn't be repealed and I have to say that none of them if I may use the pun hold a whole lot of water. [Interruption] Ha ha! That one didn't take any research at all. But the first one I think probably the core one that's been talked about is that rates will go through the roof. Now we know that councils are going to be responsible under the legislation which is being repealed for at least the next two years for water. So talking about what's going to happen to water bills the rates bills in the next year is kind of meaningless because councils are still going to have water on their books for the next two years.Then there is this thing about well rates are going to get much much higher over a period of time and it's as though there's a magic money tree that somebody is going to be paying for the water services. We know that there's a lot of investment that is going to be needed in water. That's very very clear. The question is how much. But we know also that all of us are taxpayers most of us are ratepayers and all of us—I can guarantee all of us—are water consumers.What we're repealing is something where the bill was ultimately going to be changed. In fact at the beginning councils were still going to have to collect it because the billing systems weren't going to be set up. So it was still going to have to go through councils and the original proposition was: councils you're going to have to bill people for something that you have absolutely no control over. It morphed into: councils you're going to have to bill people for something which you can have some sort of modicum of influence over. But they're still going to have to bill people until billing systems are set up.I think you could take it as read that water was going to have to be paid for through meters at one point in time because otherwise you can have an unelected body effectively setting up some kind of rate. That's not a very attractive proposition. So we're going to have water meters in and in some areas delivering water meters across the board is going to take probably a decade. It's a very big investment proposition. But the key point is that people were going to have to pay. We've heard some really big numbers talked about over there and I can't remember all the numbers—I think it was $9000. Was it more—$9000 more per household that I think Kieran McAnulty was talking about. But he did talk about one of them which was Tararua District and he said that over a period of 30 years it was going to cost I think he said $600 million 12000 households. You work that out—that is $1666.67 per household per year. Well actually people are paying rates right now for water. Many of them are not paying much short of that. So that's not actually a particularly astronomical sum.The question you would always ask with these things is: what are the assumptions that you've built into the numbers that you're talking about? One of the problems with the model that we're repealing is that it was predicated on saying if we do this if we make these things bigger they're going to be more efficient. Bigger is not always more efficient. We know that. Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't but it's predicated on that. And if you put a model in place which says we're going to put in I think it was 4 percent improvement in efficiency every year in this model but in the status quo or any other model we're not going to recognise any possibility of any savings or any efficiencies of course it's going to look better. Garbage in garbage out—and that's basically the level of analysis that was done in that area.Then of course is the very very convoluted model of governance which I think is part of the reason that they are over there and we're over here today because people didn't like that. What that set up is two different classes of New Zealander. Some people—Willie may well like that but I think most New Zealanders didn't like that and that's why they voted accordingly. That's one of the reasons that this Government said that it didn't want to continue with that and is doing the repeal as it is doing the repeal today.Hon Willie Jackson: You should hang your head in shame. You were a disgrace as a mayor.ANDY FOSTER: Very kind of you Willie to say so. We were actually getting on and—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we'll cut the personal attacks thank you.Hon Willie Jackson: I'm just saying he's a disgrace as a mayor.ANDY FOSTER: Well at least I'm not a disgrace as a member Mr Jackson which you have been and have been all along.Hon Willie Jackson: Sit down you mug.ANDY FOSTER: Madam Chair I think that is unparliamentary language.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. The Hon Willie Jackson I would ask you just to tone down the language please. Otherwise I'll have to get you to stand withdraw and apologise if it happens again. Thank you. Continue.ANDY FOSTER: So let's be clear. There is no magic money tree in this. Somebody is going to pay for the water system. Do we need more money invested in water? Yes we do. But again there's this issue of potentially gold plating. So the legislation that we are removing went all the way down to literally: two houses made a water system—a small group of houses together. By and large my understanding is that those people did not want the Government in some way or other intruding on their provision of their water services. Was the standard of water that we are looking to deliver reasonable? I've also heard about getting water off the council's books—getting water off the council's books. Now for councils that's pretty attractive in some ways because it means there's a lot less discipline on them. But what you really need to make sure is that councils don't say Well we don't have to pay for water now. So now our rates have gone down we look much better so now we can go and spend money on something else." But the reality is while it lets councils off the hook in that area what it doesn't do is let the ratepayer the water consumer off the hook because that money is still coming out of their back pocket. and that's what matters to people. If you're looking at a cost of living crisis the important thing is the total cost of living and that includes both rates and water.We heard a little bit about what councils—Hon Willie Jackson: Do you have an alternative? Do you have an alternative? I'm just asking Madam Speaker very respectfully. Do you have an option—do you have an alternative?ANDY FOSTER: Madam Chair I'm actually enjoying the interjections because it actually gives me time having just come from select committee to here to actually look at the notes that I've got and get the computer working there.So I also heard from the Opposition—I actually always listen very carefully to the people who are worth listening to on the other side. There's this assumption that setting up the entities which were set up in the legislation that's about to be removed—that somehow that was magically going to fix the pipes. Well no it wasn't. You still need people to get out there and fix the pipes. So Ginny Andersen was talking about saying "Well you know it's going to take us 12 months to set these organisations up." but there's still going to be water coming out of the ground in the meantime. The reality is that you still need people to fix those pipes. Setting up the organisations was not going to do that. All it was going to do is simply move—have I run out of time? Did the clock not work?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep going.ANDY FOSTER: OK. Right. You still need the people to do that. You still need to build the workforce. And one of the things that we've heard—and this is right across the board not just in water provision but right across the board—is that we need a lot more people. We need to upskill our workforce to be able to do that infrastructure work. It doesn't matter whether it's roads whether it's housing whether it's water—all of those need trained people. So we need the workforce to be able to do that.We've also heard a lot about balance sheet separation. Now the proposition which we are repealing was based on borrowing an absolutely astronomical sum—something like $160 billion to $180 billion. So what that was doing basically is to try and kick off the cost of delivering our water system to future generations and I don't think that is particularly responsible. I mean councils already borrow for the CAPEX to build and to fix and to upgrade water systems so there might have been a marginal benefit there but it would have been a relatively marginal benefit.I'd also like to mention that for most councils there will already be a significant amount of money in their long-term plans (LTPs) to upgrade water systems and they are much more focused on that and they will continue to be more focused on that. As LTPs have rolled out this year I've got absolutely no doubt there will be more money put in by councils right across the board to do that.We've also heard from members across on the other side from Julie Anne Genter. She talked about councils needing to replan because of this. I think the repeal of this was really really well signalled by the coalition Government coming in. People could look at the polls and say it's quite likely. In fact councils have had to go through the whole process over the last little while of going: is the previous Government going to put their regime in place? What's that regime going to look like? And of course it kept on changing.So I think that this is quite appropriate now to repeal this and then to get on with doing the replacement legislation. We've had the timetable for that and we will get on and do that as the incoming Government. Thank you Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This next call is a split call and I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi."