McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Speaker. This country faces a $180 billion problem. That is how much this country needs to find over the next 30 years to fund water infrastructure in this country. If it doesn't then people will get sick. If it doesn't then development will not happen. We heard numerous times that the National Party MPs dispute that figure but provide nothing to the counter. They can point to their own individual qualifications as Michael Woodhouse just did—but he didn't provide any counter argument other than he disagrees with the figures that have been provided by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and peer-reviewed by Beca and peer-reviewed by Farrierswier. But doesn't that sum up the National Party's position on this very issue? They have walked a very interesting line throughout this debate and I'm very interested indeed to see that yet again the National Party have changed their position on the issue of water services reform. It seems now today that the National Party have always agreed that something needs to be done. I had a little read through the first reading speeches. Simon Watts started his speech and finished his speech with a very clear message: they will repeal three waters—full stop. There was nothing about replacing it. It was We will repeal." If anybody here wants to go over to Wairarapa as soon as they drive through Featherston they will see a massive billboard that says the National Party will repeal and reverse three waters. So that's the second position. The second position was not just repeal; it was repeal and reverse and now they're trying to say they will repeal and replace what is in this bill. So there are three positions and I think what that says to the people of New Zealand and to Parliament is that they are trying to position themselves as the ones that have the solutions without offering anything at all. This bill deals with a very serious problem—an issue of the tune of $180 billion that at the moment every single community in New Zealand is facing. And when every single community in New Zealand is facing that it means ratepayers are facing that. Councils themselves say they cannot afford to do it by themselves. They either have to increase rates to an extent where the community can't afford it or they don't do the work they know they need to do. Councils aren't the villains in this issue. Councillors are hard-working and dedicated elected representatives. There are people that work at the councils that have dedicated many years of hard service to their communities. Over successive generations the councils that currently represent our communities face an issue that they have inherited. It is not their fault but they cannot fix it by themselves. If we take the Tararua district for example they need to find $600 million over the next 30 years—a figure they do not dispute. They have one of the largest roading networks in the country a huge geographical area and a very small population that simply cannot find that type of money over the next 30 years 50 years or probably even over the next 100 years. They just can't do it and the National Party's solution is to leave them on their own and say they'll be all right because National is going to repeal the legislation—or is it repeal and reverse or is it repeal and replace?Let's take their point of view that was stated today—that they're going to repeal and replace. With what? It's a very simple question—a question that has been posed for four years. What are they going to replace it with? They have no ideas. They have no policies. That is not a debating point Mr Speaker; that is a matter of fact. As I was going through the first reading speeches I came up with an absolute doozy from Matt Doocey—a Doocey doozy. He promised in his first reading speech that the National Party will co-fund this required investment. He said it once and once only. He contributed to the second reading debate he contributed to the committee of the whole House and he contributed again today. Did he say it? Did he say it—my foot. Someone got in his ear and said that what he had just committed the National Party to was a $92.5 billion dollar bill while at the time they were proposing $11 billion worth of tax cuts. Even Paul Goldsmith knows that one doesn't add up. The fact of the matter here is that the National Party are left wanting. I'll take the opportunity to give the ACT Party credit. I don't agree with them ever but at least they come up with policies. At least they come to the table with an alternative.You will note that Simon Watts has tried a real trick that he tried at the second reading as well. He says that the Government says that there are no alternatives. No we don't; we say that they have no alternatives. Communities 4 Local Democracy had an alternative. They presented it to the Government. The Minister Nanaia Mahuta and her officials reviewed it. They discussed it with them and they appreciate the fact that they actually came up with an alternative but it didn't achieve what is needed to be achieved because it doesn't achieve the balance sheet separation. Simon Watts will scoff but I'll make this very simple point. On two occasions in this House he has listed a long list of alternatives—none of them are his—and none of them has he or his party committed to. Make no mistake—the National Party have one policy on this matter and one policy alone and that is the status quo. They want to leave communities—that can't afford to do this work—on their own. It is the free market user-pays mentality that is rife amongst the National Party that is going to leave ratepayers with bills that they simply cannot afford. Even now we are seeing rates rises across the country that people can't afford and that doesn't even take into account the amount of work that is required which is being outlined by councils day in and day out. And let's not forget: while some councils agree with three waters proposals and some councils don't agree with three waters proposals by this Government every single one of them agrees that the status quo is unsustainable.So when the National Party members stand up today and paint themselves as the saviour of local government and ironically promote the one thing that the local government sector do not want when it comes to water services that is called dancing on a pin. That is trying to present an argument and distract from the core issue here—that they have no solution to a problem that is facing this country and is going to cost over 30 years $180 billion. At least the ACT Party came up with a solution. Their solution is that they will share the GST from new developments from councils to allow them to invest in water services. Fine good as gold—a billion a year. It's a $180 billion problem and a billion dollars a year is going to take a very long time to solve the issue. So it doesn't add up but good on them for coming up with a solution. I don't agree with the Green Party's position. They agree with the need for reform but for particular issues they're voting against it and so too are Te Paati Māori. But I appreciate and respect that view. At least they've got one. All we've heard from the National Party throughout this debate is "No." They change their position because they pick up the sentiment in the public. Once they realise that the public recognises that there needs to be reform in water services they think that the public won't realise when they change their billboards across the country except for forgetting to do a few. So if you drive for two hours on State Highway 2 you'll see a mix of billboards: "We will repeal and reverse" "We will repeal and replace" advertising to this country that over this whole debate they have changed their view without coming up with a policy.For four years this issue has been debated. The Government through the leadership of Nanaia Mahuta—and I take the opportunity to acknowledge her today. She has taken all the rubbish that the National Party has thrown at her and all the rubbish they have stirred up in our communities and some that has gone towards the Minister has been incredibly nasty. She has stood strong and stood proud and focused on the issues. She has focused on a solution—the one thing where the National Party refuses to front up. So by all means run around the country with your slogans but I implore the National Party to answer one thing when they go and talk to the communities. Justify to their faces how they are happy to leave them with unaffordable rates rises and unsustainable water services in this country when they had an opportunity to engage and had an opportunity to come up with a solution."