Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Oh thank you Madam Speaker. Well this is the Backdown Bill". It was signalled that it was coming I predicted it—or we predicted it—and here it is. We're finally at the tail-end of this Parliament considering the Government's bill that essentially gives effect to their embarrassing climb-down over water services.What a shambolic process it's been from start to finish—and it's a frustrating shambles because actually across the Parliament there's quite a degree of consensus that water infrastructure in this country is stuffed around various different parts of the motu. There is I think a consensus across Labour and National and ACT and the Greens that we need more investment we do have an infrastructure deficit. Councils—some councils not all councils but many councils have done a poor job of managing their water assets and we need change. And you've just got to step back and ask yourself at the third reading: how have we got ourselves into a position where the Government has managed to inflame local democracy and local communities up and down the country where what some people would regard as slightly esoteric matters have led to billboards all around rural and provincial New Zealand. It's extraordinary—Anna Lorck: They're not up anymore. You can't see them anymore.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh you can't see them anymore?Anna Lorck: No.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh that's because they've all been replaced with National Party billboards that's why. They've all been subbed out. Anna Lorck says you can't see "Stop Three Waters" anymore. The reason you can't see them anymore Anna—I'll tell you why you can't see them anymore—is because the same people who are opposed to Three Waters have now translated their support over to the National Party and they've put up National Party signs.Anna Lorck: Make a prediction. Make a prediction.CHRIS BISHOP: OK here we go—OK make a prediction.Anna Lorck: Come on Mr Bishop.CHRIS BISHOP: Make a prediction make a prediction. No no no—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! I would like to hear the member's speech.CHRIS BISHOP: I want to hear Anna Lorck's prediction.Anna Lorck: Oh I'll be speaking.CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah but are you going to make a prediction? OK if you won't I'll make a prediction: Anna Lorck won't be an MP after 14 October. Because she and a number of other Labour Party members of Parliament in rural and provincial—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order!CHRIS BISHOP: She and a group of Labour Party MPs in rural and provincial New Zealand know in their heart of hearts they have completely stuffed this issue up. It has led to and is leading to a big backlash. And this goes back to my original starting point which is: how has it got to this point? Because actually there is consensus across the Parliament I believe that we need sensible water reform. But the Government from start to finish has gone out of its way to annoy enrage and frustrate the legitimate interests of local communities. It started with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta's very stupid ad campaign in which local councils were essentially insulted—with taxpayers' money—by TV ads and print ads and things like that basically saying to local communities: "Your councils have got this wrong." That unsurprisingly put the backs up of local councils.Then the Government pretended to go through this consultation process and said "We're not wedded to anything. We haven't ruled anything out." But it turns out as my colleague Simon Watts discovered Cabinet had already agreed to a legislated all-in solution. They were out there going around the country saying "Well we want to talk to you; we take this very seriously"—blah blah blah all the things that Ministers have to do. But the point is Ministers have to do that but they have to mean it—the words they say have to mean something. And it can't just be a fig leaf which is what it actually turned out to be. Then essentially the Government came in over the top and said "We're going to confiscate these assets and put them into these four mega entities." And that's where the rubber really hit the road. There was a big backlash a big controversy about that and Chris Hipkins' so-called reset—the reset that's not going so well—went from four entities up to 10. OK that's a marginal improvement. But actually what should happen is we should let councils decide on their arrangements on their own volition.Our policy which is I think the correct policy is to leave councils to sort it out and if they don't deliver the type of changes that are required then central government of course has a legitimate role. There is consensus around economic regulation. There is consensus around water quality regulation. There is consensus I believe around the necessity for balance sheet separation to use debt to fund these long-lived assets. That's the crazy thing about all of this—there is actually quite a degree of consensus but the Government has got the politics all wrong. And that's my second point which is that there is a consensus but the Government has stuffed the politics and therefore they've stuffed the policy.However there are a number of objectionable elements to this bill and to the Government's water reform programme generally. The first is confiscation. As I've already mentioned this bill does confiscate local assets it does take those assets off councils and our view is that is wrong. The second thing we object to is the mandatory co-governance provisions in the bill. The Government has never properly explained why the governing entities have to have fifty-fifty co-governance; they are yet to articulate a proper reason as to why that is required. We have asked repeatedly and communities have asked repeatedly and we are yet to hear a reason as to why that is required. And we had the ridiculous spectacle of the now Minister of Local Government Kieran McAnulty arguing on Q+A that mandatory fifty-fifty co-governance was necessary for balance sheet separation which is just ridiculous. It just makes no sense—and that was also the interview in which he claimed that democracy had changed in that the sort of modern notions of democracy were different and that we sort of had to all go along with this idea of mandatory—Simon Court: He's going to find out about democracy in a few weeks.CHRIS BISHOP: Well that's exactly right—that's exactly right. And so we object to that on principle. Then we get to the other thing which is Te Mana o te Wai and the disjunct between Te Mana o te Wai statements and the community priority statements. And this is really important because members opposite including the Prime Minister have made much of the fact that the Government's listened and now there'll be the ability for everyone to influence the new water entities through the community priority statements. Except there's a big difference: the entities "must" give effect to Te Mana o te Wai but in relation to community priority statements the word is "may". As lawyers in the House will know there is a big difference between "must" and "may". One compels the entities to do something; the other gives them the discretion to do something—so there is a disparity. These new water services entities will have to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai statements and as various commentators have pointed out in the public domain the breadth of these statements is essentially untrammelled very large in scope no one knows exactly how they will be used and the entities will have to give effect to them. The only people who can issue Te Mana o te Wai statements are mana whenua of the local area. So it is not clear how they will be used it is not clear what they will actually have the effect of doing—all we know is that the entities will have to give effect to them.Then we get to community priority statements and as I've said that is discretionary. A water services entity could be compelled by law to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai and for anyone else who decides to issue a community priority statement the water services entity could say: "Well that's all very interesting but I'm not compelled. I only have to think about looking at and we don't want to." That's the reality; that is the legal position. Attempts were made in this House to equalise the two statements between Te Mana o te Wai and community priority statements and the Government rejected that the Government chose not to do that—that's an explicit policy decision made by the Government. So essentially community priority statements they're not quite legally meaningless but they may as well be legally meaningless—particularly in contradistinction to Te Mana o te Wai.Do Māori have rights and interests in water? Yes they do. The Crown conceded that under the last National Government and that remains the position of the National Opposition. But to give effect to legitimate rights and interests in water our position is that you do not need mandatory co-governance provisions and you do not need Te Mana o te Wai statements that are legally superior to other abilities for communities to legitimately influence water infrastructure in their patch.This bill is objectionable and the National Party will oppose it. We will sort out three waters properly in Government ourselves."