Court Simon; Mahuta NanaiaSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT is the party that exists to promote better public policy. That is why we engaged constructively with the Government and their officials when they first proposed this reform in 2020 because there are real problems with three waters infrastructure. They need to be solved. This bill doesn't solve them. If we think about—how do we level up ageing and failing infrastructure between towns cities and regions across New Zealand? How do we incentivise councils to deliver three waters infrastructure to surface sections so that people who want to build a new house on a surface section can get a section at a reasonable price? How do we keep sewage off beaches and out of our rivers? And how do we pay for these necessary investments? Those are the problems to solve but this bill doesn't solve them. That's because this bill is a Treaty settlement dressed up as an infrastructure reform. [Interruption] That's right—a Treaty settlement dressed up as an infrastructure reform.Now this reform loads up the four new water entities with $2.5 billion worth of debt before they even open their doors on their glossy new offices—$2.5 billion worth of debt that's what this Government's going to rack up and dump on these water service entities before they even lift a manhole lid. The Labour Government's pushing this bill through the House even though New Zealanders have rejected it—88000 submissions against the bill. They've united townies like me and my country cousins in opposition against this bill. At the Fielding A and P show Anna Lorck. At Hawke's Bay Anna Lorck. At the Christchurch show for those of you in the South Island. Even in Auckland Helen White people are asking me Why does the Government need to take water care off us and these other assets?" Why do they need a flash new office for 250 people in Auckland when it turns out that Watercare already has an office just down the road and run our assets just fine thank you very much." With a bit more money they could be excellent.That's why ACT will repeal this legislation when we're part of a future Government. We actually have an alternative three waters infrastructure plan that we've put to councils to professionals to farmers and to irrigators and they've said "Actually the ACT plan's pretty good we could support most of that." That's a huge difference what ACT proposed to what this Government's proposed.So let's just cover off some of the main issues with the bill. Firstly I want to talk about centralisation. Centralisation was cited by the Minister for Local Government as a requirement to level up water quality between regions and towns and cities but ACT believes that shifting local assets from one Government entity to another is a recipe simply for more red tape and inefficiency. It's not an enduring solution to upgrade our infrastructure around the country. But ACT does agree with submitters who proposed a practical approach based around regional models based around catchments and geographies based around water networks that are actually connected to each other and communities of interest. Groups like Communities 4 Local Democracy the Auckland mayor Phil Goff and the new mayor Wayne Brown and of course Phil Mauger Mayor of Christchurch and Waimakariri mayor—retaining local democratic control over how assets are used funded and financed is another important feature that ACT would insist on.Then we think about funding and finance. Well the Minister's proposed a deficit of $180 billion. There's many ways to fund infrastructure the committee's heard from submitters which are already allowed under legislation like the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act and under the Local Government Funding Authority. And in fact Labour's housing minister Megan Woods recently announced on 13 October a $192 million grant—quoting from Minister Woods—to help "councils iwi and developers make sure critical infrastructure like pipes roads and wastewater connections is in place so thousands more homes can be built and communities can thrive." That's without three waters reform. Another Minister who sits two along from where Minister Mahuta's sitting tonight—she announced that. That's how you can fund and deliver three waters infrastructure: with grants and other means like raising revenue bonds. Now most places that have a revenue stream like a water metre or a water charge could raise a bond and that money could then be applied to fund and finance new water infrastructure like waste-water treatment plants water treatment plants and network upgrades that allow for housing intensification. Any funding and financing system needs to have the maximum amount of flexibility but that's not what this bill allows for.Then I want to come to balance sheet separation which the Minister has said is a critical aspect of reform. That means the debt raised by these water entities proposed in the bill won't be held against council balance sheets or Government balance sheets. However the Government's own official advice provided by Standard & Poor's blew this concept out of the water. The committee heard that these proposed water entities won't be able to achieve balance sheet separation but if they are they'll be highly leveraged and they'll have a very high risk rating—just like Kāinga Ora who recently had to come cap in hand to the Government begging for $2.75 billion in assistance. These water entities will not be separate. They can't be. But if they are they won't have the A+ rating that the Local Government Funding Agency currently does. They'll have a B rating according to Standard & Poor's which is on the way to junk bond rating Minister. This destroys the balance sheet separation argument. Minister either you've not read the reports or you haven't understood them.Now the worst aspect of this reform Minister—the worst aspect of this reform is the Minister's divisive co-governance agenda and the Te Mana o te Wai patch-over of local communities and councils. It's completely unnecessary and this agenda makes it harder not easier to achieve your reform objectives which you say are about infrastructure Minister. So there's no rationale for having these co-governance concepts at the centre of water reforms.Minister Nanaia Mahuta herself replied to a written question I put to her: what rights and interests do iwi Māori have in three waters assets? And the Minister responded—a written question: "… Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets"—Minister—over those of taxpayers in any community in reply to a written question. Then there is the Te Mana o te Wai statements which only iwi and hapū can provide—and at any time—and must be given effect to. Now this could cover any aspect of water water use allocation discharges overland flows storage recreation on lakes and rivers. The list of things that a Te Mana o te Wai statement exclusively provided by iwi and hapū that the water entities will have to give effect to—it's an unlimited capacity to direct how water is used.Now ACT has an alternative three waters plan. We can improve the current system but we don't need to do so through State-mandated centralisation and allowing some people to have more influence over how water is used and allocated based on who their grandparents were Minister. Communities 4 Local Democracy and more recently Auckland and Christchurch councils have expressed widespread support from their communities for ACT's proposed alternative three waters infrastructure plan. We would provide for councils to enter into shared services agreements like Auckland's Watercare does with Waikato councils. You get the benefits of scale you retain local ownership and control. We'd incentivise councils to upgrade and build new three waters infrastructure by sharing 50 percent of the GST Minister that Government takes from people who build homes—takes and pockets for itself. ACT would return 50 percent of the GST on all new builds to councils to fund three waters infrastructure. We'd establish long-term 30-year agreements between central and local Government to make sure that the infrastructure that was needed that councils signed up to was actually delivered by local government.And of course we would allow private sector investment. We would allow the Super Fund the Accident Compensation Corporation your Kiwibank that you love so much to invest in three waters assets and infrastructure through public-private partnerships—in fact any possible way to get money to build stuff ACT would say "Bring your money and build stuff so we can solve the three waters riddle." ACT's plan will better balance community needs deliver infrastructure. When ACT is a part of a future Government we'll repeal this bill Minister we'll chuck it on the trash heap and we will put our three waters plan in place. Thank you Madam Chair.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for that member to have another five minutes.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose is there any objection? There is none. I call the honourable Simon Court.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker and thank you for offering me an honorific so early in my parliamentary career where although I'm not a Minister I feel confident that I've brought more practical experience from nearly 25 years as a civil engineer to this House to talk about how we could reform three waters infrastructure funding and finance the delivery mechanisms the procurement mechanisms and how we could incentivise local government to actually deliver more infrastructure.Now ACT's been thinking about this for a long time. ACT's housing spokesperson Brooke van Velden advocates for a GST rebate sharing 50 percent of the GST that this Government takes from new house building construction—we don't know what they do with it takes for itself—and to give half the money the central government collects in GST from house building give it back to local councils so that they can actually cash flow more three waters infrastructure more roading infrastructure and get more homes built.When we think about what the principles are of localism of devolving decision making down to communities—why is it that this Government is so obsessed with centralisation? Whether it's the three waters reform or whether it's the health reforms just about everything this Government wants to do involves centralising control in a Minister's office. The Resource Management Act reform and the Natural and Built Environments Act will centralise final decision-making on plans and places in the Minister's office. Centralisation is the opposite of what our communities are asking for. What they're asking for is the ability to tell central government what their communities need to grow to get support from central government for the funding and financing the delivery architecture. The structures would allow new homes and new subdivisions to be developed new mixed-use developments with higher intensity.It costs a lot of money to renovate old pipe networks and waste-water treatment plants in central cities. Infrastructure is expensive Minister. That's why what ACT would do is open up the market to fund finance and procure more infrastructure to organisations like the Super Fund—to organisations like Crown Infrastructure Partners like ACC iwi investors. There are all kinds of organisations that would like to invest in infrastructure because it's a long-term investment. What this Government—[Interruption]—that's right. What this Government has committed to is to take taxpayer funds $2.5 billion of debt into these new water entities without delivering a single new pipe or a single upgrade to a waste-water treatment plant.Now the other thing that this legislation complicates—and I have to give credit to the Green MP Eugenie Sage; she pointed this out—is that the provisions around stormwater around bringing in parks and reserves around geothermal waters and around coastal waters make this not just a three waters bill but maybe even a five waters bill Minister—a five waters bill. So how on earth is it going to be possible for people who want to develop geothermal resources who want to deliver renewable energy for communities help us transition—who are they going to have to negotiate with Minister to get their developments up and running? Or will this just be an opportunity through these Te Mana o te Wai statements for continuing rent seeking from some of the most privileged and wealthy organisations in New Zealand—these post - Treaty settlement organisations which are more than capable of looking after their own interests Minister. But the Minister's empowered them through this legislation—empowered them through this legislation—to have an undue influence an influence which is totally unbalanced compared to the farmers the foresters the manufacturers all of those people involved in primary production and places like Anna Lorck's electorate where they can tomatoes they can fruits and vegetables. Can you imagine how they're going to struggle to get water in the future when they have to go up against some of the most powerful tribal corporations in New Zealand? That's why we oppose this bill. Thank you Minister I'll take another five—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired."