Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to question it again in relation to the referral motion and the report back motion. I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC). I was also the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee when the Water Services Entities Bill came back in June of 2022. And the report back date for that particular bill because it was the first bill in a series of bills which reformed the water entities across the country was a five-month period. So that was truncated in that it was five months. However I don't think the seven-week justification for this bill to be reported back is fair. The reason for this is that this bill has 103 clauses. It is a totally new bill. It sets up new commercial arrangements for Auckland Council. It sets up a whole balance-sheet treatment credit ratings and financial support.In the regulatory impact statement which was given by officials for this bill they say that the time frame constraints have meant there has been no opportunity for sufficient consultation on the proposed bill as required by the Cabinet criteria. It also says it identifies the scope and timing constraints resulting from the Government policy direction in this area and within these clearly identifies strategic and detailed options going forward in using an appropriate framework to assess this. So the officials in preparing this bill through their regulatory impact statement are concerned about the lack of consultation. They set it out very clearly and they weren't able to provide the Government with the necessary assurance that the options that they put forward would actually work in the way they were intended. The options that they put forward in the regulatory impact assessment only partially met the criteria assessment because it didn't have sufficient consultation.So therefore having a seven-week report back date for the Finance and Expenditure Committee which would also require a public submission period. If we work backwards—18 July that's the report back date—it is likely the committee because the referral motion also gave permission for the select committee to meet on any other day—so say for example we pushed it right to the end we pushed it to the Monday of that week of 18 July. That means drafting instructions for the revised-track version—or if in fact it's a new version of the bill we would only be able to have a week with it so now we're into week five. We also have scrutiny week during the seven-week period. Therefore for the select committee to do its job and hold the Government to account for the Estimates which this Budget has put through you effectively have that date out. So we're now down to week four or three—so week three. So therefore working backwards again it looks like we might only be able to call for submissions for I would say maybe five days—five days five to 10 days; I would say five days—in order for the select committee to hear public submissions on a brand-new framework for water service entities. It is a brand-new framework with new commercial arrangements in it.And again I remind the House that officials in their regulatory impact assessment said they were constrained around the assessment of the options put forward to Cabinet because there was no consultation. So officials were constrained and now the Government is making the Finance and Expenditure Committee constrained by giving us basically I would say five or perhaps generously 10 working days to have submissions.Now let's work forward. If this gets through today—because today the chair could call for submissions—we are now in King's Birthday weekend the public might pay attention to it next week. That means that next week they will only have five days to put in a submission in. Auckland is our largest city. That is not enough time. Again I stress back to the House officials were constrained because they had no consultation. So for five days submissions are open perhaps there will be five days for the select committee to hear submissions from—it could be—across the country because yes this is Auckland. However the Amendment Paper then reopens it to the rest of the country because it's the national freshwater statement not just Auckland. Because of that Amendment Paper it is wider than just Auckland—because of that amendment paper. Then we hear submissions then we have to deliberate we have to provide drafting instructions and we have to look at a version of the bill—all of that effectively within six weeks.So I do not stand in support of the report back motion or the referral motion to FEC. We are a very good select committee. However this motion and this report back on 18 July does not give us sufficient time to be able to do our job to ensure that this bill which has not been through anyone else except for Government hands and officials to be able to have a proper say on it and actually review the bill. And this is a commercial bill; this is not just $100. This is billion-dollar entity with the assets for our largest city. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will absolutely do our best to consider this. However I believe that the Government should look at an amendment for the report back date. July 18 is too short. We lose a week because of scrutiny week so it effectively becomes six weeks. That's the second sitting block after this week. Even if they pushed it out to August that gives us another three sitting weeks to consider it. That would at least be better than a six-week turn-around.And the members on the other side of the House may not understand but this is a brand-new framework. I don't even know if it even has a post-statutory review on it. And basically the committee would have to ask for that because what happens if this has errors in it? We won't have time to actually check with other people. And it's unfair to the public that during a King's Birthday weekend they might have to actually pick up this bill and start drafting their submission because the submission close date might be next week.So I just want to again acknowledge my concerns as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that six weeks because we have a scrutiny week is not sufficient. Officials were constrained in their assessments as set out in the regulatory impact statement because they couldn't consult. And now this Government wants to constrain the Finance and Expenditure Committee. And ultimately the people that will lose out in this will be the people of New Zealand because this bill is wider than just Auckland.