Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair and thank you to the Minister for being here today to answer some questions in regards to local government. I want to start firstly by following on from the MP from Nelson Rachel Boyack to acknowledge the good work that local government have undertaken in Nelson in Marlborough and also in Tasman in regards to the response to the flooding and the natural disasters that have occurred there and obviously the broader team in regards to local government executive but also civil defence and other first responders within those communities. I also acknowledge those in Northland and also in Taranaki who have also faced similar aspects. That really personifies I think the importance of our local communities and our local government in our country and only those based locally can respond in the way in which we've seen in the past week to deal with local issues and the importance of us making sure that we maintain and strengthen that is so very important.Today I've got a number of questions for the Minister and I'll run through in hopefully some groupings around that and I'd be keen to get some good dialogue in regards to that. But the Minister articulated it in her opening statement in terms of the scale of reform that's currently under way within the local government sector and much of that we touched on when we went through the Estimates conversation in regards to three waters and other elements that have been touched on. But the scale of the reform in regards to the Resource Management Act; in regards to three waters; in regards to the future of local government which was just articulated; in regards to civil defence; in regards to all elements—it's all come at the same time. And it's come off the back of COVID as well. So the implications really and what we're hearing from local government across the country is that that is a significant weight of pressure on them on their people and they are now seeing concerns—or real reality—of high levels of turnover within their entities. I'd be interested firstly for the Minister to be able to articulate whether she is concerned in regards to the scale of turnover that the local government sector is and has been seeing in the past period primarily due to the result of the scale of reform that is currently being undertaken by this Government and what effect if any that has on the ability for local government to maintain a degree of continuity in terms of service delivery.The second aspect and probably the most fundamental aspect of reform within local government—again that we touched on in the Estimates conversation—was in regards to three waters and I want to start firstly by really getting right back to the start of What's the problem we're trying to fix?" I think it would be fair—and no major party is standing here saying that the current state is fit for purpose and perfect. I think everyone acknowledges that improvement is required in this space; the conversation is really how best to undertake that. But if we get back to some of the key costs and benefits statistics that have been articulated we've heard numbers bandied around of $120 billion to $180 billion of infrastructure cost. But I want the Minister to reflect in terms of that because that was the basis in order to say why the scale of cost is required. When Castalia who is one of the independent third-party assessment agencies had a look at the financial data that was prepared by Scottish Water or the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS)—and I quote—"The reform scenario was based on faulty assumptions and flawed analysis." Well I can't be much more categoric in terms of that statement but that's in regards as I said to that $120 billion to $180 billion fiscal number. Farrierswier also another independent agency appointed in order to have a look at that financial modelling said—and I quote—"WICS' analysis cannot be used to definitively conclude that the amalgamation in and of itself will lead to material efficiency gains in New Zealand." Those are both significant statements that underpin the fact that the whole basis of this fundamental reform in regards to three waters is based and using Castalia's words on faulty assumptions and flawed analysis.So on that basis I want to know from the Minister: how is she confident that we are embarking on such wide-scale reform and change in regards to three waters when the underlying costs and benefits on which this whole reform process has been built is as I've articulated flawed? [Bell rung] I appreciate that was quite impactful! I will carry on for another period of time while we give the Minister a little bit of time to come up to that because they are challenging questions I acknowledge.I also want to get on to—and it's another element that we talked about as part of the Estimates process. It was in regards to the expenditure particularly around consultants on advertising. Again the basis for this reform that was hammered home to Kiwi households across this country was a wide-ranging advertising campaign that was absolutely as articulated borderline in terms of what it was portraying in terms of the problem that exists in the country. Last week as a process of select committee hearings in regards to the three waters reform we heard time and time again: "Is your water broken in your district?"—"No." "Do you have an issue with your toilets or your taps all that?"—"No." The issues that were raised in regards to challenges that communities and households across this country have are that yes at times there have been issues but the overarching premise that our system is fundamentally broken and that we've got green slime coming out of our taps is absolutely materially flawed and that analysis and that advertising is not accurate. So what I want to know from the Minister is given the enormous problems that have recently been uncovered by the Auditor-General does she feel that this money in regards to consultant spend and advertising spend on three waters reform was money well spent?The second aspect—and it relates back to the comments I made in regards to the Scottish water commission who were consulted extensively and at significant cost I must also add on three waters. Many councils have raised objections to those numbers. So what is the quality of assurance—and this is a question for the Minister—and independent review of those numbers that has been completed that gives her confidence that the underlying basis for this one of most significant reforms in local government's history—what assurance and independent review has she had that gives her assurance that what we're undertaking is built on a strong platform of substantiated facts and costs and benefits? Because as I articulated I've given two independent examples which have been very clear in regards that this has not been the case.And lastly in regards to the spend does she believe that all the costings done by contractors on three waters—and there was a wide range of costings undertaken in regards to the reform—does she believe that those underlying costings undertaken by those consultants are accurate? And if so what scrutiny has she applied on those numbers to make sure that when we're hearing time after time after time from councillors saying "The numbers that have been tabled are not materially accurate for my district"—and I don't know I lost count of how many times we heard that last week. I've told and we've told officials time and time again that these numbers are wrong; they're inaccurate they're materially misstated and words even stronger than that. What scrutiny has this Minister undertaken to make sure that the costings that have been undertaken by officials in regards to three waters are accurate? And how can she have any confidence that what the councils are saying when they're arguing that these numbers are inaccurate—what confidence can she have in regards to that?"