SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker thank you. The Green Party's position on the programme of change in the water services era is a nuanced one. We supported the Minister's amendment to this bill because it does improve the bill and it better integrates the changes that are happening in water services with what is happening with the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the big Resource Management Act reform. We have opposed this bill because we are still fundamentally concerned about the scale of corporatisation that it involved. We supported the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill because it increased the number of entities from four to 10 so that it had that better connection with local communities that so many submitters and so many councils called for.But the scale of corporatisation here—I'm surprised that the National Party is proposing to repeal the bill because these corporate entities are exactly the sort of entity that National normally supports and would have no hesitation about seeking to privatise or partially privatise if—in the unlikely event—it became the Government. So we sought in earlier bills to have an entrenchment provision and I rebut what Nicola Grigg said; that was responding to the substantial public concern about water assets needing to remain in public ownership. It was flagged during our alternative view in the select committee report; it was well flagged it was not done in secret. It's unfortunate that that was walked back but we accept that that was the decision of the Parliament. The costs involved in this programme of work are substantial. They have been premised on the principle of balance sheet separation so that there is no association with the councils and the ability of councils to really influence the decisions that the water services entities take on the $150 million to $180 million investment that seems to be needed. And the composition of the regional representative groups with strong representation for mana whenua is part of that distancing from the councils and distancing from the decision makers. This balance sheet separation has been fundamental to the legislation but it is something that the Greens dispute. We don't think that other options were adequately looked at. The Watercare model is performing well in Auckland with two waters. In Christchurch I have the benefit of getting clean water from the services delivered very effectively by the Christchurch City Council. Larger councils are quite competent and can do this. Other options like having the Crown back councils or council-controlled organisations to do more investment—as we've seen in Scotland where the Crown there does back the investment and infrastructure of the Water Commission in Scotland. Those models weren't adequately explored. The Department of Internal Affairs and its consultants have done a huge amount of work so the changes have become a bit like a steamroller: they have kept on going. There have been promises made that it will prevent rates blowing out—what will happen if that doesn't happen? The cost of actually then continuing to implement the reforms particularly in the storm water space is something that the Green Party is really concerned with. We want to see a much greater investment in nature-based solutions and we're concerned that as more extreme weather events cause more rainfall more risk of flooding—that engineer-dominated entities will fall back on traditional solutions of pipes because generally in the short term they are cheaper but not in the long term. We want to see strong Government policy to ensure that we get a movement towards spongy cities because those investments in spongy cities—in green space—improve city amenity and are cheaper in the long term and they're good for our mental health and wellbeing. This is a major change. It will be some time before all of the benefits that have been promoted—whether or not they actually occur. Auckland Council was said to be more efficient at the big unitary model; the costs involved haven't necessarily borne that out. But the major reason we are opposing this is because it separates stormwater from councils and the key role that councils have in place-making their control over the levers and the planning tools and the fact that the entities might have relationship agreements and have to work those out with councils and with the managers of roading corridors. All of this creates quite significant transaction cost. And I think there is a big issue as well—not only the transaction costs but the increased debt that the balance sheet separation will enable and we will go on to debate the next bill in terms of consumer protection and efficiency. The scrutiny that the Commerce Commission provides over the levels of debt that the water services entities incur is absolutely critical so that we avoid making those mistakes that have happened with the big private entities in the United Kingdom and those becoming virtually bankrupt because of the level of debt that they have incurred. Bigger entities tend to go for bigger infrastructure solutions when smaller ones can be just as effective. We need to ensure that there is a diversity of options particularly in the stormwater space—and not just ones that rely on big pipes. So we're not supporting this bill; we think that other options should have been investigated more and that this has become a bit of a steamroller.