Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Fixing our water infrastructure is the right thing to do. It's not an easy thing to do but it is the right thing and it is the necessary thing. Even Simon Watts the chap who was strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage before the dinner break—even he conceded this week that there is a need for change and a need for Government involvement in that. What you have heard tonight—all the shouting all the smoke and fury—is an Opposition that is overcompensating because they have no plan. Simon Watts admitted that on TVNZ's Q+A this week that they would make a plan when and if they got into Government. That is not a plan; it is literally tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. It is a way to dusty death. Meanwhile pipes in the ground remain broken water services remain patchy and drinking water for thousands of New Zealanders is unsafe.As a country we are good at making do. Well we have sweated and sweated and sweated our assets and now we have a tale of burst pipes sinkholes geysers going off in the middle of the street. This is what Radio New Zealand described in one of its stories as daily disasters in Wellington". Without significant investment it will get worse. The investment needed is at at least $120 billion and that's without factoring climate change.Of course any plan will be controversial because it is infrastructure it is complex it has not been regionally coordinated and regions feel threatened by how they will fare compared to other regions. That is understandable—this is new territory. That anxiety is understandable. But the fear has been fuelled in many cases by those who have not done a good job at managing water services. It has been exacerbated by a local body election system that rewards those who keep rates down rather than invest.What is not forgivable is those who have fuelled the debate with race-baiting and misinformation. They are the ones who are dividing our country and pitting New Zealander against New Zealander. Let's remember that this is about pipes in the ground. It's not about water itself despite what the haters have been saying. So let's separate fact from fiction and there's been a lot of fiction. There's been a deliberate campaign of misinformation and scaremongering. David Seymour's propaganda that water reform is akin to South African apartheid is wrong it's mischievous it's divisive and it completely mischaracterises mana whenua involvement and kaitiakitanga of water infrastructure.As Jonathan Milne who is the managing editor of Newsroom said in a piece this week "There is widespread misunderstanding of a perception that the new structures discriminate on racial grounds." He goes on to say—and I quote—"Te Mana o Te Wai is a Government framework to manage New Zealand's fresh water ensuring the health and wellbeing of the water is protected and human health needs are put ahead of the other uses like irrigation." So what he is talking about is whānau communities whose rights are already protected under Te Tiriti getting to put their position on how that water should be protected. That is what kaitiakitanga is. What he says is—again I quote—"To portray it as anything more sinister is to stir up a storm in a teacup." That stirring up in my view accounts for some of the very racist submissions from people who clearly didn't understand the reforms. I would implore them to become better informed to go to correct sources of information and not to the incorrect and racist propaganda.Maureen Pugh: The single source of truth right there!INGRID LEARY: Those are tales told by idiots full of sound and fury—we're hearing some of it now—signifying nothing especially when there is no plan.Aotearoa as a select committee we have listened to you. There were 88000 submissions—the vast majority of them were form submissions. I took the select committee process very seriously. I made it my business to read every submission including one representative submission from each of the form submissions. I did that for two reasons: one is that I wanted to understand people's concerns and ideas and secondly I promised my 85-year-old father that I would do so because he was worried about privatisation. I had many many late nights reading submissions and I asked many many questions at the oral submissions as we toured the country. We heard that the vast majority of submitters agreed that reform is needed because of safety and to keep costs manageable. We heard and we saw that people cared deeply about water infrastructure that there's an emotional connection as well as an intellectual concern for what happens to their assets. We heard that nobody including my father wants privatisation. We heard many passionate articulate New Zealanders and we thank them for taking the time and energy to submit—we truly appreciate it. There were submissions from councils like Dunedin City Council and the Clutha District Council where there were detailed legal submissions on how the bill could be improved. There was a lot of work put into those and that is appreciated. We also did hear alternatives and we considered them but they did not stack up. They may stack up today but not for tomorrow. The mayors' plan that was referred to earlier simply doesn't achieve balance-sheet separation. It does not stack up for tomorrow. Government committee members pored over the documents and it was clear to us that the reform as proposed would only achieve their aim if the four fundamentals remain and those are: public ownership Treaty partnership balanced separation and good governance. What we did also hear concern about was local voice transparency and accountability and that's the good governance part. We heard that loud and clear. We heard that too from the Auditor-General and I want to thank him for his proactive involvement because that is an institution of democracy that has shown how effective it can be in a process like this. We have recommended significant changes to address those concerns—there are 130 of them. We've heard both from the Minister and from my colleague the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Barbara Edmonds what they essentially capture which is improved local voice strengthened representation and increased transparency. They will also provide certainty to councils regarding planning and transition. Moreover they will meet councils' unanimous—and I stress unanimous—desire to continue to work or strengthen involvement with mana whenua.Rural councils have been listened to. The bill now includes a provision which requires a mix of rural provincial and metropolitan councils to be present on the regional representative group. So rural voices will be heard. There will be publicly held meetings strengthened reporting lines and increased audit scrutiny. They are significant changes and they address the vast majority of the concerns that we heard.I want to thank the Minister for listening to us and wanting to get this right. The four entities will be plan takers not plan makers. This works from the bottom up not from the top down despite what you might hear. These are needed to fix the water infrastructure now and into the future.The reforms that we need would not be possible if it was not without fundamental change. There would otherwise be massive rate hikes. Now we're not saying that there won't be rate rises but the rate hikes that would be needed would be exorbitant to meet the billions of dollars that are needed for these reforms.This has been an issue that has crept in a petty pace from day to day from year to year and from decade to decade. It won't wait. I say to New Zealand: do not listen to the poor players who strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then are heard no more. Do not listen to the loudest people in the room who have no plan. Think about the solutions that are not about local empires and empire building and power plays but think about what will take us from today into a tomorrow where every New Zealander has safe clean affordable drinking water. I say listen to the facts. That is what we as a select committee have done and that is why I can proudly confidently and honestly say that I commend this bill to the House."