Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh good choice Madam Chair and first can I congratulate you with your ascension to a presiding officer. I know you're a member with huge integrity that you'll bring to the role so congratulations. Well let's start with Part 2. Part 2 is a very interesting part of this bill which talks about the water services entities because really when you start thinking about what this reform is going to look like there's nothing more jarring than thinking about these four mega-entities. Already Kiwis are very concerned about a similar model being rolled out through their health system which has resulted in absolute failure. It is interesting when you look at clause 11 the changes in the select committee: the objectives of the water services entity have gone from deliver water services and related infrastructure" and been changed to "own and operate water services infrastructure"—own and operate water services infrastructure. I'd argue that especially for the residents I represent in Waimakariri that will send a chill down their spine that we are debating in this clause mega-entities that will own their water assets. Let's be very clear: this part that we're debating now and we'll be debating for some time this afternoon will actually legitimise the forcible seizing of local ratepayer assets.So there is a question of why these water entities need to own and operate and if we look at clause 15(2): "A water service entity is co-owned". Why would Waimakariri ratepayers be happy to move from single ownership to now co-ownership? How is the dilution of their ownership going to result in better-quality water assets? I'd be very interested to hear from the Minister in the chair Nanaia Mahuta why she thinks a council that already has very high-quality water assets and is delivering very high-quality water is now going to gain by diluting its ownership into co-ownership.Then the second question around the issue of ownership: does the Minister think that she has been listening to those councils? Of course when we had the three mayors stand up in Auckland—Mayors Gordon Mauger and Brown—the Prime Minister said well actually she was open to listening. So does she think that her Government is listening by ignoring their pleas to retain single ownership and go into a co-ownership? What was the point I suppose of sending out the Associate Minister on his trip to all of the councils—where he got a very clear message: great guy but wrong party—who said that they were going to listen.Let's be very clear: clause 11 of Part 2 that we're starting this debate on has been changed in the objectives of the water services entities which originally were to "deliver water services and related infrastructure" to now going to "own and operate" and not only own and operate but with clause 15(2) a water services entity is now co-owned. So councils will go from single ownership to co-ownership. Does the Minister feel that is good faith and right when councils were led to believe that they could opt in to this reform? As we know in Waimakariri they went to their ratepayers: of those who responded 95 percent wanted to opt out. Now we have a legislative all-in: mega-entities that we're debating in Part 2 that are going to take over ownership and dilute ownership from councils. I think most listeners and viewers at home will be extremely concerned by what basically is State theft by stealth."