Edmonds Barbara; Mahuta NanaiaBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Chair and congratulations and thank you for stepping up to be a Temporary Chairperson given the sickness on our side of the Chamber. We thank you very much for that.I want to respond very briefly to Andrew Bayly's comments on clause 117. I know he has directed the question to the Minister and she may respond to that but my concern with that is that Mr Bayly was part of the select committee process that actually made the decision to make this amendment from 35 years down to 15. So he's asking the Minister what were the considerations the select committee went under to get to this point from 35 to 15. The Hon Eugene Sage also spoke to that in the Chamber earlier today so some good listening skills would really be appreciated because then we wouldn't have to repeat what we did at the select committee and what we did here in the Chamber. So let me say again for the purposes of the Chamber—because it was the select committee that recommended it. It was also in the commentary on the bill which again the member can read. The time limit set for the term of contractual arrangements represents a balance between flexibility and enabling long-term assessments that support cost-effective procurement and service delivery especially given the long-lasting nature of water services infrastructure. That again was part of the select committee process. I remember that member asking a particular question and saying Why have we gone to 15 years? We agreed to 35." And again officials answered it on the spot. So I ask the member to go back to the commentary on the bill and have a good read of it because this particular change from 35 to 15 was something that the select committee took a cautious approach to and that's the reason why it's in this bill.What I did want to ask the Minister about were clauses 120 and 121. The select committee did spend a lot of time reflecting on what could be a good employer and we received a number of submissions on what could be a good employer. That included training and development. But at the time the committee thought we would balance it and allow the entities to put in some of those extra recommendations from submitters. But what I note is that the Minister looked to clarify some of the parts around the Public Service Act so I ask the Minister if she can just take the committee through what she intends and what is the policy intent of a water services entity to be a good employer. Again we were really fortunate to have a number of employment lawyers on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We spent a lot of time on making sure that we covered most bases. There were some elements that didn't make the revised tracked version of the bill and I'd just like the Minister to come through about what her policy intent is around those clauses.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I welcome the member's clarification of the discussion that took place at the select committee in relation to the joint contracting arrangements and the lessening of the period from 35 years to 15 years. Upon further investigation of the submissions what I also noticed is that many submitters themselves felt that 35-year contracts were effectively a type of privatisation and I don't think they were casting aspersions on who the contract holder was. I just think they expressed a preference that if there could be local procurement it would be a preference and it would be an advantage to New Zealand and it would have a local advantage. That's the first thing.Back to the question from Barbara Edmonds and back to the point in relation to water service entities being a good employer. Well part of the guidance really is around the formation of the policy which is set out in clause 120(1) (2) and (3) but actually the guide is section 73 of the Public Service Act 2020 with the addition as I pointed to in my opening statements of paragraphs (i) and (j) in that particular clause. Overall though when we go through each consideration line by line of what it takes to be a good employer what we said was that the schedules of the Act is the application of how that can happen. So for example in Schedule 1 we see how there is good employer protection of those currently in the workforce and how they will transition through into the water service entities. And if we can give any clear direction and certainty about being a good employer it is to stand up legislation that gives certainty to the employment of a chief executive and then the chief executive's role is to make sure that the transitional arrangements can be given effect primarily with staff but then going through to infrastructure and architecture. The member on the other side of the Chamber talked about IT and the IT platform and a lot of work's gone into that. And you know what? We've learnt a lot from other big transition programmes like for example—Hon Member: I hope so.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —if the member wants to listen—the Auckland reorganisation. In a practical sense that is a comparable type of transition where a number of councils were brought together to create the super-city and in fact that was policy led by the then National Government. And there were a lot of learnings at that time about what you can do better and the mistakes not to repeat and effectively the key areas to prioritise in a big transition programme such as that was. So we brought that learning forward. It is in the local government sector—we brought it forward but we've applied the very best elements of the learning in this particular context. In terms of the questions around the employment of a chief executive the approach taken in clause 119 aligns to sections 117 and 118 of the Crown Entities Act and as I say we've tried to ensure that we're not reinventing the wheel unnecessarily. We've taken the very best elements of what we know to work and adopted it within the context of the legislation. Why? Because we want this to succeed notwithstanding the comments on that side of the Chamber. Why? Because we know that being responsible and finding a solution means we get to seriously contemplate every eventuality that could arise. Why? Because we know that at the end of the day if we do this well and we will all of us will benefit because we'll have a more sustainable way of financing water infrastructure and we will give our communities our kids and our families the assurance of safe drinking water. It doesn't matter whether they come from a big community or a small community—that assurance alone means that those people in Te Kao who've had boil-water notices don't have to go down that track. There have been many other places around New Zealand who have been in that instance.Coming back to Part 3 Madam Chair—and thank you for your indulgence—there are other elements that I think are worthy of comment to the extent that we want to ensure again on the point of privatisation that that is prescient in the minds of people who believe that change is necessary and believe that we can have a public model of water service delivery. We know that in the UK for example that private model of water service delivery doesn't deliver the best advantage to their communities."