McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. When a Minister spends half his allocated speaking time talking about the Opposition you know that what he's saying isn't actually quite the case and that is absolutely the case for the Minister of Local Government. What he has promised New Zealand he won't be able to deliver.Hon Member: He already is.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: We will see. It's very interesting isn't it that Government members are quite vocal. I wonder if they will be vocal if ratepayers come into their office with their latest bill that demonstrates the latest increase—because they should because it's their fault. Next time New Zealanders see an increase in their rates bill they would be misplaced in blaming their council because this Government has put that council in that position and they've done that in two ways. One is by repealing the water reform and two is what the Minister did a couple of weeks ago and completely dismissed every single recommendation from the review into the future of local government.The reason this bill is going to cost ratepayers money—and I think it spoke volumes that the Minister actually didn't refer to advice that he'd received; he referred to the same political arguments they made during the campaign because if he was upfront and did provide the advice they would demonstrate that what the Government is proposing in this bill will cost ratepayers more than the water reform. The only thing they have is that the water reform cost $1.25 billion. The only point at which that was wasted was when they repealed it because if they left it alone things were in place and all they needed to go—[Interruption] Listen to it. Anybody hearing this online or on the TV can hear the response. The reason they're reacting like that is because they know deep down it's true.I'll give them an example. In South Wairarapa there are three towns. Two of them have now paused all development because the council-controlled organisation (CCO) that they are a member of does not have the funds to upgrade their waste-water systems. Now this is a CCO that is exactly the proposal that exists under Local Water Done Well. This Government is setting up councils with a false promise—a false promise—and if they don't like that I'll present them with this: they went around the country promising councils that if councils supported them when they got into Government they would help them pay for their water upgrades and their water maintenance. They promised councils that they would help them pay. We're talking about $185 billion over the next 30 years. Councils cannot do it by themselves and they cannot afford to do it even if they are under a CCO because they won't be able to get the required level of balance sheet separation. But they promised them none the less.Then they got into Government and they broke that promise immediately. An objective person would say that if you promise something with no intention of keeping it and then you don't keep that promise that is dishonest and yet they walk around now and say that they have saved councils from the burden of the cost of water reform. It is disingenuous. We're already seeing rates increases around the country and councils are saying that it is because of the repeal of the water reform. The advice is there from the Department of Internal Affairs—all that has been peer reviewed—this Government's decisions around water reform are going to cost councils and therefore ratepayers more.It was interesting that the Minister thanked the submitters. I don't know why because they've ignored the councils that submitted to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that said if this goes through as is proposed they are likely to be on their own. Now the problem with that is it's usually the small rural councils that are going to be left out. When you have councils with a massive roading network and a number of towns that they are required to service but a very small rate-paying base they simply cannot afford to pay to do the work and if no council voluntarily chooses to go with them what are they going to do? Now this is a problem that we have raised with the Minister on a number of occasions and all that he has is the political attack lines that they used in the campaign. There's no substance there; there's no sincerity.What they've done is they have repealed reforms not because they weren't going to work because all the evidence was there; they've repealed reforms because they contained co-governance. So they've wasted $1.25 billion according to the Minister because they didn't like co-governance. They didn't waste that money because it wasn't going to work. They didn't waste that money because it wasn't going to save ratepayers money. They repealed it because they didn't have the guts to front up to the electorate and say This will actually work but if we do it like this we're going to have to look at a way of recognising the long-established special interest that Māori have via the Treaty and established through the courts in water." They didn't have the guts to front up and have that conversation so instead they made false promises to councils they lured support amongst ratepayers and said that "National Party will help our council pay for it if they get in." and they got rid of it with no intention of keeping that then scrapping the reforms which would've worked. Why? Because they didn't want to front up and have the co-governance debate. I actually think that is disgraceful.Even now you know from the Minister's speech when he's trying to pre-empt what the Opposition might say that his argument doesn't stack up on his own accord—it's the age-old tactic—that's because it doesn't. Nothing he has said today stacks up. The reason Watercare were proposing 26 percent was because these guys repealed the water reform.So when the Minister stands up and says "We saved Aucklanders from 26 percent water charges." that was a problem of their own making. It takes a bit of gall to be able to stand up and say "We've saved Auckland from the problem that we started." but that's what they've done.The other issue around Auckland is that was the easy fix. That was the only one that they were able to do what they've done in Auckland where it would work because no one else has the scale. So to the people of Northland they're cast on their own. To the people of Tairāwhiti they're gone. The top of the South Island: they're on their own. The West Coast of the South Island: they're on their own. Because those councils don't have the scale even if they join up just with a couple of their neighbours to make this work to the level that it needs to. Even then a CCO as is the supposed outcome doesn't have the balance sheet separation to be able to withdraw the debt associated to the work that's already been done and absorb the debt that will need to be taken on in order to do the work. That's why you're looking at examples in the Wellington region under Wellington Water where that model simply has not worked. It's not delivering for South Wairarapa and it's not delivering for the other councils in the Wellington region.Now maybe—just maybe—they will be able to jimmy up an arrangement for these councils that is a slight improvement on the status quo but significantly worse than what would've happened if they'd let reform go through. It is all there in the data. All they care about is appeasing those people that were worried about co-governance but I have a theory which I happen to think is true: that actually deep down people care more about the rates that they have to pay than they do about co-governance. When you look at the projected rates increases across the country not just this year but next year and every year for the next 10 years they have all jumped up significantly since this Government repealed water reform.And it's your fault. I say to the members opposite: you've all done this.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not my fault Mr McAnulty.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I thought I got in there just in time Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ha ha! I'm still listening.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I did say "I say to the members opposite" but I'll clarify: I did not mean the Speaker. But to members opposite I say to them "It is your fault." and because they voted for it they should be held accountable. Where are they fronting up to their ratepayers and saying "We voted for higher rates bills because we didn't want co-governance."? That's what they should be saying and I think the ratepayers will look them in the eye and say "Actually do you know what? I think I'd rather have cheaper bills.""