Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Talofa Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this very very important matter local government water services. From this side of the House Labour opposes this bill because under the last Government we had a solution. My colleagues have informed and reminded that side of the House why the plan and the solution that we offered with balance sheet separation was the plan—it would provide good water services not just for Aucklanders but for New Zealanders.Our previous spokesperson traversed the country and was able to get the evidence to provide the solution. This bill does not do that. We have to question that New Zealanders have huge problems with just paying everyday costs. The cost of living in terms of school lunches in terms of public transport—we had a couple of solutions there but this Government has taken that away and is providing tax cuts for those who actually don't need it.With regards to this bill Labour absolutely opposes these options put before us because they do not address the problem. You have heard my colleagues talk passionately about Auckland Council and Watercare. However under this current bill what it explains is that Aucklanders will be worse off. So I asked the Government because they're so passionate in terms of their behaviour—and they're all looking at their phones because they don't want to look at us. But Labour opposes this because it does not leave New Zealanders with good water infrastructure. We need quality water infrastructure for waste water for stormwater and for drinking water. I did hear the previous member Catherine Wedd from the region where we lost lives because of the water that was provided that was not healthy and as a result we lost a life there.I want to just explain that the options before us do not provide the solutions that balance sheet separation would have provided because it would have created the funding for good water investment. It would have been a sustainable solution that New Zealanders would have confidence in. Also for that side of the House it would have included our voices from tangata whenua. It is important that New Zealanders understand the limitations and the constraints that are provided by the analysis in terms of the regulatory impact statement. People need to explain that because there is no process for New Zealanders to understand.So in terms of water infrastructure the fact that this bill is being rammed through in urgency is not something that we should be celebrating. In actual fact we should be questioning and in particular scrutinising the effects especially the financial effects that it will have on ratepayers particularly for our communities who are on fixed incomes and who are in a worse financial situation. They are now going to be worried about paying for what they deserve—good healthy drinking water good water infrastructure. So this bill does not do that.In terms of this side the expectation for every New Zealander is to have good healthy drinking water that they are able to access day in day out. So in terms of the rates rises that not just Aucklanders will face it comes at a time when it's absolutely unaffordable. My plea to the Government is to rethink and have more conversations not just with New Zealanders but with the solutions that were provided by the last Government that that side of the House do not agree with. So I am very pleased to put forward that we will be opposing this bill. I do not commend this bill.