10. Question No. 10—Local GovernmentRACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 10—Local Government10. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Xiexie Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her comments on Three Waters reforms that Pausing the reform discussion will not help to respond to the significant challenges facing councils"; if so why?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Xiexie Mr Speaker. Yes because the case for change is compelling well understood and needs to be addressed. Doing nothing is simply not an option. To expect a responsible Government to ignore the evidence would be simply irresponsible. The proposed reforms focus on how this country can most efficiently and effectively deliver an investment of $120 billion to $185 billion over the next 30 years to transform water outcomes for all New Zealanders. Central and local government working together would make sense so taxpayers and ratepayers get the long-term benefits of a significant step change.Rachel Brooking: What has she done to ensure that the local government sector are well informed and contributing to the Three Waters work programme?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: From the beginning I've worked in good faith to define the nature scale and extent of the Three Waters challenge and while a complex issue some councils have been well engaged and others have only recently joined the debate. We've engaged on problem definition which is under-investment in waters infrastructure for at least the last decade. We've discovered the debt ceiling borrowing limit is a significant constraint and that on the whole long-term plans (LTPs) have not funded infrastructure deficits sufficiently to keep up with maintenance renewals and growth. That's why $710 million was invested from the COVID economic recovery fund to enable councils to bring forward maintenance and renewals forecast in their LTPs supporting local jobs with local businesses. We've also worked together on commencing the companion conversation on the future for local government which at the request of the sector is designed to ensure that the role and function of councils remain integral to achieving broader wellbeing outcomes for their communities.Rachel Brooking: Does she consider that the sector has received enough information to support the proposed Three Waters approach to reform?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes and it is a challenging set of reforms and challenging to digest. Thirteen Cabinet papers have been proactively released through the three-year period along with a number of critical reports. Overall there are well over 100 documents on the Department of Internal Affairs' website including a huge range of papers on financial modelling summaries of the extensive stakeholder engagement and the overall case for change. Additionally individual councils have spent their own resources to commission contestable advice often because they were never in favour of reform or they wanted to remain outside of the solution that sought nationwide benefits for all ratepayer households. Sadly the cost pressures looming for councils from higher health and environmental standards will mean ratepayers will bear the brunt if the status quo remains. That was never my intention and the reforms are about a financially sustainable pathway with real benefits for ratepayers.Rachel Brooking: Does she consider that the sector has received enough time to engage with the community?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for that question. This is a complex reform process. Sadly local elected leaders with very good information are asking their community to make a decision based on less information. I'd hoped that by working in partnership with local government the conversation with the community would focus on key challenges with the current system so they understand why the discussion was under way. This commenced some three years ago. My expectation was to work in partnership with local government and to that end right from the beginning I've maintained that a public ownership model that would safeguard against privatisation is the starting point. I've also undertaken to bring forward the positive working relationships that councils have with iwi and we've identified ways in which equity and consumer benefits can be achieved through economic regulation. Importantly we've also worked to ensure that there is sound transitional planning for workforce continuity for those in the sector. Sadly while councils have received this information the community has not and we were going to work together to ensure that they did. I'm mindful that a partnership works both ways.Barbara Kuriger: Will the Minister rule out making Three Waters reforms compulsory for councils; and if not why not?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I'll rule in the fact that the case for change is compelling and well understood. We've moved well—[Interruption] should the members wish to hear the answer—past the starting point of not understanding the complexity and the scale of the challenge to actually now the sector understanding that there is a significant challenge with huge costs looming on councils that we need to find a different way. The status quo will not work.Mr Speaker point of order. I seek leave to table a letter received from Water New Zealand the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia and the Association of Consulting Engineers expressing their continued support for the Three Waters reform.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I apologise for the lateness; the Minister popped in with her own point of order. The last question was not addressed. The question was around compulsion; she answered it with a case for change and—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Have a good look at Speaker's ruling 180/4. It is very clear.David Seymour: Point of order. This is a matter of enormous public interest. Now 180/4 notwithstanding I think it would be good for the House and this Parliament if the Minister could plainly address whether the Government will rule out legislation—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat now. I have warned the member previously for taking up rulings which I have made which have been clear and he is being argumentative to the point where he is trying to overturn a long history of Speakers' rulings. If he wishes to make a change of that sort to the way this Parliament works I suggest that he makes that suggestion to the Standing Orders Committee because it is not going to be a ruling that I overturn on the floor of the House. I want to say to Michael Woodhouse if he continues this argument I will regard him as being deliberately disorderly.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. My point of order had nothing to do with Speaker's ruling 180/4.SPEAKER: Well that might be the member's opinion; it's not mine."