McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. There's a major issue facing every single district council in the country and that is the huge level of expense required over the next few decades 30 years on how to upgrade and maintain our three waters services. The fact remains that many councils in particular small rural councils can't afford to do this work—they can't. I have in my electorate five district councils. I've met with all of them I've heard their concerns and I've relayed those concerns to the Minister. Many of those concerns have been implemented in the changes that have come out of the working group's recommendations and the bill is significantly improved as a result of that. So now we're in a position where we have a clear choice. We have a choice between reform and the status quo. We've heard it many times tonight from the National Party speakers: the National Party will repeal and reverse three waters. No alternative no alternative solution just the status quo. So we have a very clear choice. We've got a choice between reform and the status quo. And whilst many councils may have expressed concerns about the proposals—and the Minister herself has admitted that the process itself wasn't perfect and that things could have been done better—if you ask councils they will say reform is needed. Each of the five councils in the Wairarapa electorate have expressed concerns about the proposals as they originally stood. They still express concerns as it stands. But each one of them says that reform is necessary. So while we're standing here today in Parliament we can clearly say that we have two choices. We reform or we stay as we are. The National Party are proposing in every single speech that we stay as we are. That is what repeal and reverse means. Simon Watts: No we didn't say that—fake news.KIERAN McANULTY: Simon Watts is getting a bit wound up here and saying That's not what I said." It actually is and Hansard can show that. In the absence of any alternative solution what other conclusion can we reach? The status quo is not sustainable.If we look at the Wairarapa electorate there are two district councils in particular that stand out for me. There's the Tararua District Council and the South Wairarapa District Council. Both of them are significantly large rural areas with many small towns. The population is very small. The income level of the population is also relatively lower than the average wage of the country. They are facing significant rates increases as it is without facing the hundreds of millions of dollars each council is facing over the next 30 years.If we stay with the status quo as the National Party are proposing it is the ratepayers that will face that bill. They can't afford the rates as they are. They cannot afford the rate increases that are being proposed. And I don't say that to lay blame on the councils because every single council in the Wairarapa electorate is full of dedicated and committed community members who are doing their utmost for their community. But the situation they're in now is one that they have inherited over many many years. It's not the councillors' fault. It's also not the council's fault. But it is up to this Parliament to find a solution because if we stay as the status quo there will be no alternative but significantly increased rates or the work won't get done. Those are the only two options that councils will face. And so while I fully acknowledge that there still are some concerns about this proposal I maintain that what is being proposed today is significantly better for the small rural councils than the status quo. They can't afford it. They won't be able to pay for the work that is needed. Ratepayers won't be able to afford it. Now some may suggest that councils could borrow and pay that cost over a long period of time. Many councils can't. Many councils are already at the cap of their borrowing and that is why this proposal is structured the way it is because the new entities will be able to access borrowing that councils individually cannot and it is sufficiently removed from their balance sheet to allow them to do so.In my final few seconds I will point out that we actually have had an alternative solution put forward by National. It is the status quo but Matt Doocey committed a future National Government to pay for these assets. That is $185 billion that Matt Doocey has committed taxpayers to pay. Under these proposals taxpayers don't pay a cent. I would put to them that this makes far more sense than this policy on the hoof that Matt Doocey put forward."