Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. This bill is misnamed. This bill is called the Water Services Entities Bill but as the Parliament has learnt and the country has learnt over the last 48 hours or so it's not three waters any more. The Water Services Entities Bill doesn't affect the three waters. It's actually the five waters" because slipped into this bill by the select committee was the extension of the bill to coastal water and geothermal water and we are yet to hear a proper explanation from the Government about this. The Prime Minister was asked about it and could not explain it. She basically said "Oh I'm not really sure that's happening. Oh it's all a bit confusing. We must need to clarify that." That seems to be a common refrain from the Prime Minister when it comes to complex matters at the moment but we are yet to hear from the Government why the bill is no longer just three waters and why it is now actually "five waters". Maybe at some point in the public domain—because we're not going to get a chance in the committee stage any more—we will get an explanation from the Government before we get to the third reading in the next couple of weeks because this is a very large extension of the powers in the Water Services Entities Bill and so the bill is misnamed. We actually do need to have a reference to "five waters" in the bill title because the Government has sold it as three waters. The unfortunate thing for the Government is that three waters has literally become a synonym around the country for Government incompetence and anger around rural and provincial New Zealand in particular at a Government that they see as overreaching a Government that they see as unaccountable and a Government that they see as taking assets off the hands of ratepayers and giving it to these unaccountable mega-entities and now we discover that it's not just the three waters; it's the "five waters". The other thing is that we should have "co-governance" mentioned in the bill name because that is the thing that has riled up New Zealanders. Now I was at the Infrastructure New Zealand conference today and Michael Wood the Minister of Transport was making the point referencing Grant Robertson the Deputy Prime Minister that if there wasn't co-governance in this bill then the Crown would be tied up in court for ever. It is true to say that there are rights and interests for Māori with water. The Crown accepted that at the Supreme Court when it came to the mixed-ownership model case that the previous National Government put forward to sell down stakes in Mighty River Power and Meridian. The Crown accepted that and that has been the longstanding position of the National Opposition. But it is not true to say that to give effect to rights and interests that requires 50:50 co-governance. It does not follow from saying that iwi and mana whenua have rights and interests in water that the necessary corollary is 50:50 co-governance of these entities. It just does not compute and the thing is that the public have worked it out. The public have worked that out and unfortunately there is a middle path through this but the Government will not compromise on the 50:50 co-governance proposals. There is a middle path through this that the Government could and should adept. The other thing that should be referenced in the bill title is the extreme extent of its Mana o te Wai statements that these entities are required to give effect to because as it transpires only mana whenua can write Te Mana o te Wai statements—only mana whenua. Now that has quite rightly engendered huge outrage from many people in New Zealand. That's not to say that mana whenua do not have a legitimate role and a right and an interest in the management of water and water infrastructure but to say that only a particular group can write Te Mana o te Wai statements which the bill gives enormous importance to when it comes to these entities—in the National Opposition's view that is wrong. It's not reflected in the bill title and it should be."