Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): ACT agrees there's a problem with three waters infrastructure and the way it's delivered and the way it's maintained. The way three waters has been delivered has actually held up the affordability of land for housing and it's also led to sewage overflows and all kinds of disgusting things on the beaches around our major metros. So there's a problem to be solved and that problem is: how do we resolve the funding and financing? How do we provide proper oversight and accountability for organisations managing assets on behalf of the public? How do we provide for water services so we can provide more serviced land at an affordable rate?There's the problem. ACT engaged constructively throughout the three waters reform process going back to 2020. We talked to farmers and growers; we heard their concerns. We heard from councils who were opposed to the reforms as proposed by this Government Communities 4 Local Democracy and other councils. We spoke to people in the local government financing area who described the issues with lending to councils and the fact that many of them do not have adequate revenue collection processes to actually allow them to borrow more. Most of them don't even have water meters so they can't justify taking water service charges from residential and commercial customers. Imagine that: not being able to bill your customers for the services or the products that they use—only in New Zealand. That's one of the problems that ACT would propose to solve.But what does Government do? They've adopted a centralisation agenda. It's not just three waters. It''s resource management reform centralising planning in unelected co-governed planning bodies. It's Te Pūkenga trying to get all of the polytechnics like the one I studied at—Unitec in Auckland—to come under one umbrella as if a Government department could work out exactly what delivering education services in each community should look like.Then we come to the confiscation of assets. Now this is the Labour Party that's made a big deal about returning stolen land and stolen assets through Treaty settlements. But here it brings a bill to the House proposing to steal and confiscate assets—expropriating assets without compensation from local government.Then they lied to councils: It's voluntary not compulsory." Well it turned out it is compulsory. Then they lied to councils again: "Don't worry; you'll be no worse off. There's $1.5 billion in a fund to make sure councils are no worse off."Helen White: Point of order. I think that the reference to lying in the House and accusing people of lying to councils is inappropriate and against our rules.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): It is unparliamentary. The member will withdraw and apologise if the member wants to continue on his speech.SIMON COURT: I withdraw and apologise however ACT would certainly contend that—Hon David Bennett: Point of order. The member didn't actually accuse anyone of lying so I don''t know who he has to withdraw and apologise to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take a seat. I am in the Chair and I have already dealt with that point of order. SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr Bennett for leaping to the defence of the ACT Party. Let's be clear. Labour promised councils they wouldn't confiscate the assets then they confiscated them so Helen White I'm not sure how you describe that. Reach to your dictionary or thesaurus. You promised something and then we did something completely different. Labour said they would make sure councils are no worse off with $1.5 billion to make sure that councils were no worse off financially then they pulled the money out from under them and said "We're not giving you that money." I don't know what we'd look to in the Oxford dictionary Helen White. What is the particular word that we would seek to use?Helen White: Point of order. This is a little contemptuous of a ruling that's been made and all such rulings need to be respected in this House and so does your role ma'am.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will stay away from continuing down this line. If he wants to finish his speech within the next 5 minutes and 56 seconds stay away from that line in your debate.SIMON COURT: Speaking to the point of order it is a debatable matter whether a policy—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Accusing a party of lying is not a debatable matter.SIMON COURT: I have not. I have simply pointed out the facts: what was announced and then what was delivered. They are different.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will now continue his speech but make your points in a different way.SIMON COURT: Raising a further point of order I'd like your advice as to whether it's appropriate to interrupt a member on debatable matters simply to make a point because I believe that that actually risks causing further disorder.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This is a robust debate. The member is now at risk of disrespecting me as the Speaker. Continue your speech but stay away from accusing other parties of lying.SIMON COURT: Well then I'm not quite sure where to go to because the three waters reforms have been a litany of broken promises. So let me reach to my thesaurus. What could we say instead of using that word? Well co-governance as proposed by this Government as a solution to apparently resolve Māori rights and interests in fresh water actually according to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta the former Minister—she admitted that there are no rights and interests in three waters assets built after 1840. So the entire premise for introducing co-governance—50:50 unelected undemocratically appointed iwi tribal elites on to co-governance entity boards; there's no justification for it. Even the former Minister Nanaia Mahuta agreed. The ACT Party would say drawing from our thesaurus that that is gaslighting nonsense.Then we come to funding and financing. Well the Minister today Kieran McAnulty responsible for this bill tried to claim that even though the bill extinguishes the rights of water entities to undertake partnerships that joint ventures and council-controlled organisations would allow partnerships to continue.Well you only have to read the bill; refer to the Partnership Law 2019 Act. It says very very clearly that those types of partnerships are public-private partnerships (PPPs) which allow PPPs or their shareholders to make a profit and won't be allowed by this bill. I don't know what to call it but it sounds to me like the Minister said one thing but the bill says another.Then we come to the technical issues. How is it that having been told by submitters all the technical challenges of taking water services assets off councils—who are responsible for land use planning and development consenting—taking the water assets off them which they should be planning to deliver in order to deliver more serviced land and then adding a stormwater component taking the stormwater component off local councils and handing that to the entities—it creates all kinds of implementation risks and issues. Well instead of resolving them through the bill as difficult as it could be the Minister and the Labour Government have simply kicked it down the road to these things called "relationship agreements" that water service entities will have to enter into with transport agencies with councils with those running parks and reserves for example—kicking it down the road.This bill does not resolve the fundamental problem: how do you deliver more serviced land to enable housing growth so that young Kiwis or people moving to a new town can get a home at an affordable price so that they can choose where they live and they're not stopped from doing that or unreasonably held up from doing that because of the cost of housing? All of this water infrastructure is only to do one thing: it's to enable serviced land for housing and business growth. That is all it is for. There is an economic and social benefit to it. If this bill doesn't solve that problem what's the point? It will go in the bin. That's why ACT will repeal it.So what is the alternative? Well the alternatives have been canvassed as we worked through the bill. How could we deliver new infrastructure to provide for housing growth? How could we maintain assets in an acceptable way so that we don't have waste-water overflows onto beaches or into rivers? What we could do is allow for voluntary shared services agreements between councils. It's already working very very well between Auckland's Watercare council-controlled organisation and the Waikato District Council. It's working so well that the Waikato District Council asked the Finance and Expenditure Committee to please let them join the Auckland and Northland water service entity because they've already got a relationship. But no this Government has its own way of doing things. They're not going to listen to what's practical and what works. ACT would.Then we think about how we fund and finance all of this work whether it's $120 billion or $180 billion. Well what ACT says is that central government should share half the GST back that's collected on new builds every year because the Government takes about $2.5 billion in GST on new housing construction activities keeps it all for itself and wastes it on goodness knows what. Instead ACT would say return half of that $1.2 billion to councils around New Zealand. For Auckland it would be around $400 million a year. That would cash flow the borrowing needed to improve the assets because if you can leverage $400 million into $1.6 million or $2 million with the kind of leveraging that this bill proposes that water service entities will get then we can do it already—we can do it already. We would also expand the exemption for domestic water suppliers to 30 end users so that rural and small water users are not captured by this enormous regulatory red tape and cost.ACT's plan would deliver serviced land for housing in an affordable way not so that new owners are faced with an $85000 development contribution cost like those proposing to live and work in Drury south. ACT's plan would give confidence to business that they can access water at an affordable price invest in their operations and invest in their people. ACT's plan is a recipe for a much better water outcome. Thank you Madam Speaker."