Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill—and I had to read that because I've just this minute got it in my hand essentially. All this suite of bills around three waters have come about from what occurred in Havelock North a few years ago now. It was a terrible event and I think we all agree on that but essentially that came about because the Ministry of Health weren't doing a great job of regulating and inspecting water right across the country effectively. In fact there were very few prosecutions at all from them over the years and as Havelock North showed us there was a need for oversight and some rigour in that area. That was a very poorly managed wellhead. Anyone who's had anything to do with wells will know that you have to keep stock away from those things and it is not only the management around that wellhead but the way the well has been secured around the ground itself is also very important and that was clearly lacking. That was a terrible event so something had to be done and there's no doubt about that. Everybody agrees about that. However this suite of bills has gone way too far. There's regulatory overreach and they've gone way beyond the safety issue that triggered these bills to come into being. While this one was introduced in December 2022 I believe we are now rushing it through its last stages in urgency and you'd have to wonder why or I certainly wonder why. Rushed legislation is seldom good legislation. There are often occasions when it has to be done like with the Christchurch earthquakes or like with the Kaikōura earthquake when there was a real need that had to be addressed immediately. But often those are very short-term pieces of legislation where we come back later and do a better job. But this legislation is meant to be the first and final but it's riddled with holes. I mean some of the issues in this around all the committees—I heard my colleagues earlier on in the day talking about all of the problems with them. It's quite shocking really on some of them. For example the regulatory impact statement states that there is huge transitional uncertainty created because of these water reforms: Over time it may become evident that the scope or form of economic regulation is not in the best interests of water consumers." Well that's the whole point of this legislation as being in the best interests of water consumers and yet clearly the regulatory impact statement sees a real risk there that this is not in the best interests of water consumers. The regulatory impact statement also warned that changes can be put on tenants via higher rents with substantial risks and it says that some prices could increase significantly due to under-investment and uncertainty. These are mega-monopolies that are going to be set up to manage water. Now the Commerce Commission will have a role to play in that and we know that with the lines companies for example they come underneath the Commerce Commission's purview to make sure that they don't gold-plate investments and indeed that they don't under-invest in their assets and that whatever they spend of course goes back to the consumers in the form of fees. But this does not give us any comfort that these mega-monopolies are actually going to do a very good job. So it's really overregulation but the issue that I think really upsets people or grinds their gears if you like is some of this stuff around the mauri of the water and the Treaty requirement for the Commerce Commission. I want to touch on this. Look I totally get and respect the Treaty and I totally get and respect Māori views on things but the mauri of the water and so on is included in this bill. You can't measure the mauri and so if you can't measure it I don't know how you can manage it. So that's a real problem for us because we want legislation that works and I would wager there'll be different definitions of that. I mean this is essentially vitalism. Most cultures—almost all cultures—had a form of this in part of their development and then they've moved on from that and embraced science which we pretty much work on today. So is that better? Well it is from a regulatory and a legislative point of view. What people's personal beliefs are is their business quite frankly and I accept that and celebrate it. But we have to make laws. We have to make legislation that New Zealanders have to live by and will have to pay bills upon and essentially this legislation puts so much uncertainty into it. The Commerce Commission will have a huge job trying to control these entities to ensure that New Zealanders are not being charged too much and that these entities are investing the right amount but it has to have regard to the Treaty. Well how does that actually affect how they are going to invest or ensure that they aren't under-investing? I don't get that. I'm not aware of the Commerce Commission having any Treaty requirements that I'm aware of and I've certainly looked at it a fair bit around the energy sector so I imagine—I haven't seen any reference to it so I don't think it's there. Look I get that we want to have a New Zealand flavour on all of our legislation and that's good to a point but we have to be practical about these things. So I do not support this bill."