Lyndon Hūhana; Belich CamillaHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and I appreciate your guidance provided in the previous part in terms of how I provide my questions to the Minister. My question to the Minister of Local Government goes back to Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles and want to query the Minister in terms of his Government's engagement with the 19 iwi of Tāmaki-makau-rau and the 12 iwi of Te Tai Tokerau and the many many hapū of that region and the 219 marae of that region for the proposal to disestablish the Northland and Auckland water services entity. Kia ora.CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair for the ability to take a call on this committee of the whole House stage. It's my first call—I was unable to take a call in the last part unfortunately but I do have a couple of questions for the Minister of Local Government kind of relating to two separate issues that have arisen out of this particular repeal bill.So the first one really is: what employment advice has the Minister taken around the most appropriate way of dealing with the disestablishment of the chief executive as outlined in clause 15 of this bill in Part 2? The Minister made some comments before which I wanted also to know if he thought they were appropriate in terms of stating publicly the salary of an easily identifiable individual and making a joke about the number of employees at that entity. We've heard a lot of rhetoric from the Government in relation to the value that they place on what they call bureaucrats" and I just wanted to know—and it's quite disappointing to see that rhetoric continue in relation to individual people—did the Minister in fact consider it might be a possibility considering most of the liabilities on this Act are being transferred to the Department of Internal Affairs to simply transfer the employment to that entity therefore leaving the issue of redundancy or redeployment or otherwise within the Department of Internal Affairs to properly and discreetly deal with that particular issue? It seems to me that there might be some value in looking at that and I think these are important questions because I think New Zealanders deserve to know that their Government no matter what their position and no matter who their employer is takes their employment rights seriously and so I'm interested to hear the Minister's response on that.The second point discrete point that I wanted to raise was in reference to the accompanying departmental disclosure statement that has been provided with the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill. In this there are—and this follows the usual structure of these types of documents—a number of boxes which simply say "no". I know that other colleagues have looked at the consultation provisions specifically in relation to the number of potential consultations or areas that the Minister could have looked at in drafting the bill—which includes obviously the section that we're looking at—but didn't. But the one that I wanted to ask the Minister about is 3.1 of the departmental disclosure statement which looks at whether there are any other international obligations that might be impacted by this bill. That doesn't relate only to Part 2; it relates to the whole bill but it is also relevant to Part 2 because it may be that there are international obligations that may have relevance to those clauses which are contained within there. The ones that I was able to quickly find in my research into whether there are international obligations in relation to water are the UN resolution on the human right to water and sanitation that was passed by the General Assembly on 3 August 2010 and also the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation that was passed on 22 February 2016. I wanted to know does the Minister know: did New Zealand vote for those resolutions and if so did he receive any advice on whether the repeal of this particular law including the part we are looking at has any implications on those international obligations? Because I think that would be interesting to find out."