McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Today is a significant day because we will be able to point back to today when in the future people receive rates bills that they can't afford they can look back to the decision that this Government has made to repeal a provision that would have prevented unaffordable rates bills but they repealed it anyway.They went to the electorate at the election and the Minister of Local Government crows that they were given a mandate at the election that this was what they campaigned on—and technically that's true. But they also campaigned on the basis of funding councils to do this work. They also campaigned on the basis of reducing rates. They campaigned on the basis of having council control council ownership and balance sheet separation. And that is dishonest because you can't do them all—the advice says so. Their own advice says so: the Department of Internal Affairs has on their own website even today advice that criticises the analysis that the Government has based their policy decisions on. This won't work and I think deep down they know it but they don't care. They don't care because this gets this issue off the table.It also gets the issue off their books. When the Minister on Morning Report today declared that this will be cheaper he didn't say it will be cheaper for ratepayers; he said it will be cheaper for them. This makes it easier for the Government to pay for their tax cuts because they don't have to continue to support councils to go along with this reform process. They promised councils they would help them pay. Many of the councils that opposed the original three waters proposals did so on the basis that the National Party promised they would help them pay for it. I know because I sat down in front of every single rural and provincial council in the country and looked them in the eye and walked them through what it was we were trying to do and they got it. But they said The National Party if elected will help us pay for it so that we can keep council control and have our water services paid for." They have broken that promise and they have the gall to stand up and crow about being elected to do this. They told the electorate they would do one thing and now they've done another and they're patting themselves on the back—I think it's disgraceful.I didn't come to this House to talk about water pipes and I've listened to a lot of maiden speeches in the last six years—Hon Rachel Brooking: I did!Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —and no one else except Rachel Brooking has mentioned water pipes—and actually Rachel I don't think you did in your maiden speech if I'm honest—but at the end of the day this is the issue facing the country. I came to Parliament to advocate for working people and for fairness and equality. How is it fair and equitable and how does it look after those that work for a living when what the Government is about to pass will lead to rates bills that they cannot afford? It is not unfeasible to say that there will be some councils that go bankrupt without a financial guarantee that this Government promised them when they were campaigning. It is not unfeasible to say that there will be people on fixed incomes many of whom are retired that will have to sell their homes because they can no longer afford their rates bills. It is a sad fact but this is what happens when a Government in Opposition promises something and doesn't deliver it. There is a list of councils that unless they join into an entity that has genuine balance sheet separation will only have one option and that is to increase rates.Now I live in Wairarapa and in South Wairarapa that council has had no choice but to increase rates by 20 percent for two years in a row and that doesn't account for water services. But with the water regulator requiring councils to meet a minimum standard—which is a good thing—but without the economic efficiencies and the ability to borrow and the ability to remove the associated debt from councils' books they are hamstrung. There will be councils that want to join with others but can't because those others don't want to because why on earth would they voluntarily agree to sign up to take on the debt and the burden that the other council brings? They will be left in the lurch and many of those regions are represented by the members sitting opposite today. So when you think of places like the Wairarapa electorate which has five district councils and each and every one of them is predicted to have bills in the thousands per ratepayer per year just for water and then you vote in favour of something that's going to make it even more expensive that's going to be a difficult thing to justify in a couple of years. It's not just limited to Wairarapa; it's also every region in the country. The West Coast is now left stranded. There is no way that Canterbury will join them—no one will. I feel sorry for people like Jamie Cleine who's fought hard for his community but has absolutely nowhere to go now—nowhere to go. The Chatham Islands had a bespoke arrangement for them. They're now out in the lurch with no promise of how to pay for it. The most isolated community in the country is left out in the cold yet again. There are communities from the Far North down to Southland who will now be wondering what on earth they are going to do. Now let's remember that the original proposals of four entities did indeed meet a lot of opposition from local councils but there hasn't actually been any talk from the Government about the reaction to the proposals once they were amended. Those amendments took on board the feedback that councils gave and actually a majority of councils supported that because it was regionalised and because it achieved balance sheet separation. Because every council had a seat on the regional representation group they had input and they had influence but they were able to remove the debt from the books and that is the crucial point. The Minister refused to answer questions about balance sheet separation. I suspect that's because deep down he knows that he can't deliver it. They promise financial sustainability when answering about balance sheet separation but they don't talk about balance sheet separation. The Prime Minister today was asked by Newshub about his numbers to justify their predictions. He walked away. It is shameful—he walked away. He didn't want to front up. Why would that be? The Prime Minister fronts up on any topic and on any question and he does so on most parts with a smile although the smile's not as wide as it once was these days I might say. But you don't just walk away when a question is inconvenient. He walked away because he didn't have an answer and they have never had an answer. We have been asking the National Party to provide numbers to back up their claims right from when they first announced this policy 12 months ago and they have refused every single time and now they're in Government and they're refusing again because they know it doesn't stack up. They know that their claims can't be met. They know that ratepayers will pay more under their plan than they would have done under the affordable water plan and it is a concerted effort to the point where they won't even refer to the actual name of the thing that they're repealing because they know that if they utter the words "affordable water" people might click to the fact of what it is that they're trying to repeal here. They're talking about presenting this as if it is the thing that was originally proposed not the thing that they're actually repealing and I think that's disingenuous. What they are repealing and what the members of the National ACT and New Zealand First parties are about to vote to do is repeal the affordable water reforms—the reforms that the Government's own advice shows would save ratepayers thousands a year by 2051. It's not a $9000 saving in 2051; it is a $9000 a year saving then and it doesn't jump up in 2050. This is an accumulative cost every year—rising every year because councils have no option but to raise rates. They opposed the thing that would save ratepayers money on one clear promise from the National Party—that they would help them pay for it—and they have broken that promise. They have walked away and I think they'll rue this day."