Court Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister McAnulty I'm sorry; I found your response to my previous question wholly unsatisfactory. But if we come to section 20 of the Water Services Legislation Bill before us which amends 159 of the primary legislation Obligation to publish [an] infrastructure strategy" we find the same theme emerging that the obligation to publish an infrastructure strategy in the legislation this bill amends says quite clearly 159(b) "prepare and publish a report"—that's the infrastructure strategy—"on how consumer and community and territorial authority"—council—"owner[s] input into and feedback on the strategy was considered and incorporated into the strategy."Minister this Water Services Legislation Bill replaces the requirement to demonstrate how feedback from the community from the owner from consumers was considered and incorporated into the strategy with "the chief executive of a water service entity must publish the … strategy on an Internet site". Well publishing something that you've developed behind closed doors having heard everybody's concerns but not having to explain how you've taken them into account doesn't sound like communities having a voice. It doesn't sound like the territorial authority or council owners having a voice and it certainly doesn't sound like meaningful consultation and actually changing what these entities might do in response to feedback from communities.We must only contrast that with the requirement to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai statements provided by iwi and hapū because Minister if a water service entities chief executive—one of those people who will be paid between $600000 and $800000 a year; there'll be at least 10 of them—if one of those chief executives' only obligation to respond to the council asset owner the community and the consumer is to publish a strategy but not explain how they took on those concerns or those issues that a community wanted to be resolved and yet iwi and hapū have the right to have their Te Mana o te Wai statements given effect to by these water service entities do you think that might undermine confidence in your assertions and this Government's assertions and the previous Minister's assertions that the water reforms are actually going to deliver for communities? Does it continue to reinforce the suspicions that many have Minister that this is somehow some kind of Treaty settlement in drag that every reference to Māori rights and interests in water that appeared to be strengthened enhanced and given effect to by this bill—even though they're not proven even though the Minister Nanaia Mahuta stated categorically in reply to a written question that I put to her when she was previously the Minister responsible for this bill back in 2022 that iwi Māori don't have any rights or interests in three waters assets beyond that of a member of the community that they live in.Minister would you please explain why consumers communities territorial authority owners—why a water service entity doesn't have to consider and incorporate their views into the strategy why they simply have to publish a strategy on the internet but at the same time give effect to Te Mana o te Wai statements provided by iwi and hapū. Minister that is one of the reasons why New Zealanders have lost faith in these reforms and have completely lost confidence in this Labour Government but you could potentially pull a rabbit out of the hat right now and convince us otherwise. Have a go.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I won't because as was covered quite extensively last night everything the member's just mentioned has already been passed in previous bills. This bill references obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi but the member's point is to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi and give effect to Te Mana o te Wai statements. As I said last night on a couple of occasions at least that is in reference to the Water Services Entities Act which is already passed."