O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Excellent—it's always good to have a few Simons in the House. The fundamental principle for me is water is one of those qualities of human life which every human being and animal has an interest in and that will apply to some of my thinking as I look into Part 2 and just to signal to the Minister and officials particularly around clauses 33 and following so around the notion of regional representatives. So I'll start there because the Minister's spoken around scale and aggregation—that makes sense to me. I wouldn't mind her articulating a little bit about what she understands of the Scottish model because she's put a few out there but hasn't touched on that. But she talked a bit about local voices and good governance and I wouldn't mind understanding how she sees good governance manifesting itself in the likes of clauses 41 and 42 where we end up with co-chairpersons co - deputy chairpersons and so forth because good governance relies on clear purpose well-articulated values consensus and clarity. And the more you begin to split things let alone split based on race the more complicated things get. So I don't understand how good governance can be argued when we're creating quite a convoluted system including around co-chairpersons and co - deputy chairpersons. That just seems to me to make things far more complicated.I'd also like to know from the Minister how she can justify concepts of local voice when many if not all of the regional representatives are appointed. So this is not done by election; this is done by appointment and it doesn't matter if it's mana whenua or the regions themselves. How is just simply appointing people ensuring a local voice or one that's to be held accountable? What follows on from that is also that in this bill in clause 38 there's a list of knowledge and experience which I would argue is quite prescriptive. Again local voices I've certainly found in my time in Parliament are rather diverse. There's a range of views competing concepts and so forth. But she's become quite—well not she; rather the bill is quite prescriptive including around the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Does she accept that these are not set in concrete? I am someone who disputes aspects of these principles and I think in a democracy that's a healthy thing by the way. There's a healthy debate—in clause 38(2) it sort of implies that these principles are totally agreed. Again I just want to put on the record that they are not. Clause 38(2)(d) talks about the perspectives of mana whenua mātauranga tikanga and Te Ao Māori. That's all fine and good; those perspectives are welcome. But they are just a perspective; they're not the perspective unless the Minister would like to disagree. I'd also like to know why science is not put in clause 38 as one of the aspects which is needed because science is underpinned. I better be clear here for the people listening: I'm not referring to Western science; that's identity politics nonsense. Science is science; it's universal. I would have thought that with the management of water that that would be a key competency that should be placed. So Minister what I'm articulating here is effectively if we have a local voice why are people being appointed? Why is there a relatively limited list of qualities required of these committee members often with an implied singular view? And why is the likes of science missing? Again the co-governance—oh not co-governance sorry; the good governance suggestion that the Minister made: how does she see splitting up chairpersons and deputy chairpersons as good governance? And then the last couple of points because I don't want to take up too much of the time. Clause 33 talks about appointing mana whenua representatives. If we take that as a given how is that going to work in the likes of Auckland where there are many who claim mana whenua status often actually competing. Are we going to see these representatives groups flooded with a number of—sorry that's not meant to be a bad water pun. But are we going to see these groups flooded in tensions within the groups themselves—as you know within any tribal context regardless of country there's going to be if you will infighting challenges? How is that going to practically work? I suppose the final point that I'd like to make—and there's a lot of discussion understandably around co-governance and I want to return to where I started. Water is something for everyone and I do understand as the Minister and others have spoken the value that the Māori voices bring to the table. I understand Māori—Madam Chair? [Bell rung] Thank you Madam Chair. I won't take too much longer. It's trying to get to the heart of the question. [Member pauses] The anticipation. Hon Member: What a build-up. SIMON O'CONNOR: Indeed. Now where was I going? Māori have absolutely a lot to bring to the table and the Minister's rightly pointed out they pay rates but of course the corollary to that is just about every New Zealander pays rates. Rates are not based on one's ethnicity or identity; they all have voices to bring. So I suppose the question I want to put to the Minister particularly when we have to have this co-governance model is what is it that non-Māori are not bringing to the table? What is it with a Chinese New Zealander an Indian New Zealander an Irish New Zealander—what are we not bringing to the table? OK so what is it that is extra special? And to use a personal example what is it about my wife who's absolutely wonderful and Māori—what is the extra that she could bring to the table that I can't?Now she probably is because she's far more intelligent than me and an engineer by training but that aside what is it in her particular quality as Māori that she is bringing to the table? And I think that's really fundamentally important—it's really important. As I said at the start of course Māori perspective Te Ao Māori brings qualities but what's implied in legislation like this is that somehow it's bringing things which other groups don't have and I don't fully understand that. I might come from a different culture and concept but I also understand the value of water to me to my family to multiple generations. I just don't see what the extra is. And I do worry that we're also moving into the metaphysical side too—that we're bringing in sort of belief structures which I don't think are particularly helpful. So I'd like to understand that. Then the final point is really just a statement. Suggestions of privatisation which continue to be brought up are basically false flags and I think those listening need to understand that I don't think there's any groups in this House which are looking for the privatisation of assets and suggestions of that degree are really just something—false flag. But anyway a number of questions and thoughts there and I welcome the Minister's thoughts.