Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I'm pleased to take a call early on on this particular issue because fundamentally it cuts to the core of the benefit of the Te Mana o te Wai perspective in relation to water bodies. What we know from source protection of water in order to drink and to be able to transfer through the pipes and perhaps waste-water plants and also in relation to stormwater is that when water goes back to its receiving environment it's not good enough to treat two waters in isolation of what happens to water through its whole life cycle. In fact water stakeholders admit this. They say when you think about the way in which we look after water we have to think about the whole life cycle which is why when we bring forward the Te Mana o te Wai definition as it currently stands—it's not a new definition as it currently stands—we need to think about water source protection: taking water for drinking or other purposes to its treatment and then back into its receiving environment and that could be in coastal areas. I'll take an example from my local community. It's been a longstanding concern that waste-water discharge into Raglan Harbour has been not good enough. And do you know what? We have far too many waste-water treatment plants operating under expired consents and I know that the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard this because it was information that officials offered up. And why that's important then—when it comes to coastal water or geothermal water—is because when we think about Rotorua and when we think about Taupō where there are pockets of thermal waters that bubble up into those lakes and where there are discharge pipes that go into the lake we need to be assured that when we return water through our treatment plants back into these water bodies we are doing no more harm to the environment. And that's why Te Mana o te Wai approach will in fact improve the current state of the way in which we are thinking about the whole life cycle of water. But let me come back to the primary question of the member Simon Watts: what is the problem we are trying to fix? Core to the premise of water reform we know that councils are constrained in the way that they currently fund water infrastructure. There is always an offset and a trade-off that councils are making between what's above the ground and what's below the ground and it is becoming unsustainable and sadly unaffordable for ratepayers. That is a problem we're trying to fix because there have been decades if not decades upon decades of under-investment in our water infrastructure system. So by separating the balance sheet and finding a financially sustainable way to fund infrastructure which does not create too much of a burden for councils or the Government we are actually preparing communities now going forward into the future to be able to fund this necessary infrastructure that underpins our quality of life. And gosh knows we need it because the modelling that the select committee heard—of which that member was a part of—showed us that through the councils' long-term plans (LTP) aggregating their LTP numbers for 10 years we're going to need about $120 billion. But if you factor in things like greater resilience and the impact of natural weather events that number then escalates to about $185 billion a year. This is unaffordable for councils as it currently stands—unaffordable.So if we do not find a way to fix this challenge we are dooming generations of current and future ratepayers to bear this cost and it is far too great. That's why we are coming up with a solution. It's not simply good enough for that member to say that repealing the Act provides a solution. It might be politically expedient but it does not provide communities who desperately need a solution with a way forward and that's why we won't be voting for that particular Supplementary Order Paper by the member. We also need to ensure that when we talk about the importance of water we're actually acting in a way that is consistent with those types of statements. And I've often heard the member speak on the three water system and I really want to try and understand the merits of the views that he brings to this House but when you hear criticisms rather than solutions you will appreciate that it's very difficult to try and see your way through as a responsible member of this House to try and understand what the alternative is. Right now there's nothing. That member is presenting no alternative to the House but I still want to try and ensure that we as a responsible Government looking for a solution can appreciate some of the perspectives that he brings to the House. But repealing this Act with no solution is not a way forward. In fact ignoring good evidence is not a way forward so we won't be supporting those amendments that he's put up.