McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. We oppose this motion for a very simple reason: this bill purports to address a serious issue facing this country and it is instructing the committee to consider whether this bill will achieve what the National Party and the Government are telling people it will in a very short period of time and quite clearly in a rushed manner. A rushed manner in terms of the design and the structure of the bill rushed in the sense as to how the debate of the first reading went about and rushed in the sense as to how the motion happened.I was reluctant to make another point of order but I will point out that there is a Speaker's ruling that says that if a Minister simply reads the motion and does not provide an explanation to the House then that is cause for a longer debate because the House does not understand the rationale behind it. Perhaps if the Minister had done that we would understand the rationale of the quite unusual instruction that it is out of scope. Scott Simpson laughs but I realise—I think that's a nervous laugh. I think he's realised that they've stuffed up.What they have tried to do is they've tried to catch the Opposition off guard by rushing this debate of this first reading and then telling everyone Well you'll just have to wait and see what order we do it in."—so much so that the Minister who introduced the bill wasn't prepared. He didn't know. He read it as it was written as if it was Simeon Brown and not himself. He's now read the motion and hasn't provided justification and that is wrong. For the House to today vote in favour of this instruction to tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee which already has a large workload and already has deadlines to work by to consider submissions to the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill—when you consider the interest in water services in this country when you consider the nature of local government and the stresses and strains that that sector is under when you consider that every single ratepayer in the country is facing larger rates because of decisions made by this Government no wonder those members are instructing the committee to send it back to the House in a quick way. We oppose this. It is not I believe proper process. There were serious questions raised around whether it is appropriate for a Government to include an instruction on out of scope amendments. We of course accept the ruling that was made but it is still appropriate to raise the point that there are questions about this as a way to go about it. If they were ready they wouldn't need to instruct the committee to consider out-of-scope amendments because the amendment is submitted after the bill was done. It is clear they are not ready and something so important as water services in this country and so important particularly in the context of the promises that the National Party have made local government: one that they would help them pay; two that they would share GST revenue from new builds both of which they have now walked away from.Local government has been forced to increase rates. In some cases that's above 20 percent. Now there was one mayor that I spoke to that is having to front up to their community with a proposal of an increase in rates of 24 percent. The mayor told me that 50 percent of that proposed increase was a direct result—Hon Scott Simpson: Point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very narrow discussion and debate and the member on his feet has now moved extensively into the content of the legislation and the bill. This is a debate about the instruction to the select committee. It's very narrow it's very precise and I would draw your attention to it.SPEAKER: Well that's an interesting view but debates become wider because of various actions that are taken by the House—in this case the referral of a paper. In fact it widens the debate quite considerably and I don't think there is any suggestion that the Hon Kieran McAnulty has strayed from what is perfectly reasonable in this circumstance.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much sir. If it didn't dawn on Scott Simpson it certainly has now. Perhaps if the whip was concentrating on what they were doing they wouldn't have made this mistake. But they have—they have—and I don't actually blame the Hon Paul Goldsmith because he was stuck in it and at short notice he was asked to do something he wasn't told the background to. But if they were prepared and they weren't trying to play games and open themselves to be outwitted by the Opposition then they wouldn't have done it. But here we are. Matt Doocey laughs but let's enjoy this referral debate—you really wanted to go home eh? How's that going for you?So this discussion is of considerable interest to the whole country. It is of considerable interest to every single ratepayer in the country and I think that's why they didn't want us to say it but that's a fact. This instruction to the committee to limit and restrict the time in which they have to report back in the context of a very large workload which other speakers may wish to go into detail on because I'm not a member of that committee—I am sincerely concerned that the committee simply will not be able to do due diligence on the consideration of this bill and to facilitate the appropriate level of submissions from the public given their workload.Now if we look at the level of submissions that were on every single bill that's gone through Parliament that has considered water services it has actually been quite a large number. It has been relatively mixed in its response. There will be some people that come and say that this is a good thing and they may well be in Auckland. But there will be others who say that this bill is not good and won't work. It's not just the ratepayers and local government; it's actually water infrastructure experts and those that understand the financing of water infrastructure and my concern is that this short turn-around for this bill simply won't allow those people to develop a considered submission in the time of this contracted time frame.It will have to be considered because this is actually quite a detailed issue. As we know from previous debates around financing of water infrastructure it's not straightforward. We've also had some claims that were made today in the legislative statement and in the first reading which I don't believe will be able to be stacked up. I'm trying to be parliamentary in my response here but I think people get the gist—I don't think it will be stacked up. So if that is the case it's more important that a select committee has a full time frame in which to consider these submissions because there will be submissions around balance sheet separation.Now balance sheet separation is a crucial element to ensure that the water services—the cost that is incurred the current existing debt the cost of servicing that debt the future expenditure and the cost of servicing the debt associated with that expenditure—is off the council's balance sheets. It's crucial. All the advice has said so except for the advice that the National Party got and it's that advice that's influenced this policy that we're discussing today. That needs to be fleshed out—it has to be—because we're talking about people's livelihoods here. Let's just say that we leave water alone just for one second and talk about rates. If rates continue to increase at the rate they are there will be people on fixed incomes that will simply have to sell their homes because they cannot afford their rates bill. That's how serious this is. When you consider people on fixed incomes let's just say it for what it is. It is old people retired people people over 65 that rely on the pension and that have saved their whole lives to pay their mortgage off but that's the only income they've got. If rates continue the way they are some of those will have to sell their home because they can't afford their rates bill. I actually think that is heartbreaking and that is the serious situation that this country is facing.Now this Government is saying that this bill is going to stop that happening—and I genuinely and sincerely do not believe it will—and yet we won't have the opportunity to hear from those people. It's not just those I mentioned but I guarantee that the likes of Grey Power for example and other senior advocates will want to take a detailed look at this because if this doesn't do what the Government says it does this could actually have drastic implications on the country and that worries me a lot.So for the Government to move that this select committee has to report back by 18 July is I think a misstep and if we don't deal with this in a proper way we may have to come back and consider other legislation to fix it. The hint is actually in the instruction. They've introduced a bill they've then realised they've already made a mistake and then the way to fix that mistake is technically out of scope according to Parliament's rules so we have to instruct the committee to consider that. It's highly unusual and it doesn't bode well."