Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Well that was a heroic rewriting of history for the member who's just resumed their seat Naisi Chen. I shout out to her for the hutzpah that she demonstrated. She's a she's a diligent and hardworking member but goodness gracious me—some of the stuff she was saying: Long consideration" "We've really worked hard on this".This bill is the Government back-down bill that's what it is. It's an embarrassing bill and members on the Government side know it's embarrassing because it's worth remembering that this is yet another piece of water services legislation. But this is the legislation that changes the four - mega-entity model into the 10-entity model which was forced on the Government by the National Party and by communities up and down the country who said "Actually you have stuffed this up from the start." We went through this rigmarole last year with the former Minister of Local Government refusing adamantly to make any changes. Under the Ardern regime we were told that the Government had it all fine they'd sorted it all through—and then as it turns out they hadn't.We finally at the start of this year had the changeover to the 10-entity model and this is the bill that gives effect to it. So what was apparently all done and dusted perfect piece of legislative architecture and reform of local government was all fine; and now of course the Government accepts the problems.But the problem is the Government has stuffed this issue from the start. There is actually consensus I think around Parliament that we need water infrastructure reform. But the Government has gone out of its way to insult and belittle local democracy and local councils and local communities.It all goes back to the absurd ad campaign that the Government ran right at the start back in 2020 I think it was—Simon Watts is nodding—2020 in which we had these absurd ads on television run by the Department of Internal Affairs that really got the backs up of local councils who said "Well hang on a minute you're tarring us all with the same brush. You're insulting us by implying we can't do things better. Why don't you work with us rather than against us?" The Government said basically "Talk to the hand" from Nanaia Mahuta "I know best." Well as it turns out she doesn't know best and that's why she ultimately lost her job as Minister of Local Government.So it all goes back to that and now this is the tail end of what's been a pretty dire process run by the Government. So we are up for water infrastructure reform and we've laid out a comprehensive plan to do it. The major difference between us and the Labour Government on this issue is that we will work with local councils and in partnership with them rather than basically by dictating to them what they should do.Three points of disagreement with the Government on this bill. The first is the confiscation and that is really important. Members can kind of belittle it or dance around the issue or obfuscate as much as they would like but this bill confiscates the assets of local councils. There's just no doubt about that. That's what the legislation does; that's the point of it all. What it does is take all of those water assets and bundle them all up into—it used to be four and now it's 10. So changing the number might make the Government feel a little bit better about life. It doesn't actually change the underlying fundamentals which is that this is confiscation of local assets.Local communities and local councils have not been given the ability to figure out for themselves how they reconstitute their asset and their ownership structures in order to give effect to what I think everyone agrees is the right thing to do which is balance sheet separation so that you get borrowing over the long term to make the required investments. Our view is that that should be done in the first instance by local councils and by local communities. So that's the first issue.The second issue is the mandatory co-governance that is imposed on these 10 new entities. The Government has just refused to listen on this point. So these regional representative groups that impose 50:50 co-governance on the groups—the regional representative bodies—the bill continues and strengthens. We oppose that provision. We do accept that Māori have rights and interests in water—that's an important thing to give effect to—but there is no need for 50:50 mandatory cogovernance and the Government has never made the case properly for it.In fact we had this absurd scenario of the new-ish Minister of Local Government the Hon Kieran McAnulty going on Q+A and basically saying that democracy was one thing in the academic textbooks but New Zealand had a different version of it—which I think was news to most New Zealanders. Then the other absurdist claim that he made is that the 50:50 co-governance provisions help with the balance sheet separation which again doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So I don't think he even really knew what he was arguing it's just ridiculous. It's basically a continuation of what the Government had before and they've never properly made the case as to why Māori interests in water have to be given effect to through mandatory co-governance; they've never made that case. Our view is it's not required.The third issue is something that has escaped a little bit of attention but is actually I think the most significant part of the reforms—which is the Te Mana o te Wai statements that the bill gives effect to. Here's the key distinction. Under the water services legislation proposed by the Government relevant iwi and hapū will be able to issue Te Mana o te Wai statements to the water services bodies these new entities. The water service entities must respond to them. They must.Now the Government quite rightly has been criticised for this and their way through this to make sure everyone feels equal—or at least has the appearance of equality—is to invent this new concept called community priority statements. The difference is this: community priority statements only have to "may be considered" by the water services entities. So Te Mana o te Wai statements "must be considered"—that's mandatory—but community priority statements "may be considered" by the new entities.So we're going to end up with the situation where the only groups and the only people who can issue Te Mana o te Wai statements are hapū and iwi. A whole bunch of interest groups—I'm thinking of say Federated Farmers for example—or there may be a whole bunch of different groups in a particular local area. They might issue their own statement to the water services entity and the water services entity can just go "Well that's cool. Thanks very much for that but we're not paying any attention to it. Because the law only says we 'may' consider it but we're not going to." It's discretionary. It's flexibility. It's discretionary. So they may do it but they also may not. But when it comes to the Te Mana o te Wai statements that's mandatory; those bodies are in breach of the law if they do not respond and take them into account. Our view is that is grossly inappropriate and wrong.Then we get to the breadth of the Te Mana o te Wai statements because there is no guidance there are no parameters—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Bishop this is an amendment bill.CHRIS BISHOP: That's right.DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're now talking to the substantive bill so in the time left to you just how it relates to the amendment.CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah clause 145C is the relevant clause. The key point is this: that the bill doesn't amend the Te Mana o te Wai and statement of community priority nexus and framework and that's the point. The committee had an opportunity to change it and they chose not to and that is wrong. Our view is that the breadth and the length of the Te Mana o te Wai statements is going to cause potential chaos when it comes to these water services entities' conduct and behaviour as they go forward.So this is an embarrassing back-down bill by the Government. We are opposed to the confiscation we are opposed to the mandatory co-governance and we are opposed to the inequality of Te Mana o te Wai statements versus community priority statements. National will properly reform water infrastructure governance and regulation and funding and financing in Government. New Zealand needs it but they do not need this retrograde bill."