Kuriger Barbara; Watts SimonPart 4 Financial and accountability mattersCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now members we come to Part 4. Part 4 is the debate on clauses 128A to 168 and Schedule 3 Financial and accountability matters". The question is that Part 4 stand part.SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to continue on this debate even though at times it feels like we are talking to ourselves and there isn't much listening going on in terms of amendments. But irrespective of that—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Public's listening.SIMON WATTS: That's absolutely right Hon Gerry Brownlee. The public are listening and the public have listened and are watching the way in which this Government continues to not listen to their feedback in regards to a reform process that is destined to fail.Part 4 of this bill comprising clauses 131 through to 168 lays out as we've heard—well we haven't actually heard from the Minister of Local Government which generally would occur but I'll do that overlay just so that people understand what's in this aspect—the financial and accountability matters of this bill and there continues to be a number of issues in regards to this. It also brings into scope Schedule 3 which is also part of Part 4.The questions that I have in regards to this aspect are wide and ranging. But I'll start off with some aspects that I have actually raised in the Chamber today to the Minister in regards to—and I'm referencing here Madam Chair for the wee checklist in front of you—clause 140. In particular my points that I raise are in regards to—140 basically says who the parties are that are able to contribute into the preparation of the Te Mana o te Wai statement.The challenge that I raised with the Minister in the Chamber this afternoon was in regards to comments that she actually made in the Chamber this morning which was in regards to saying that the establishment of the principles of Te Mana o te Wai "include a number of stakeholder groups including the rural communities Federated Farmers industry groups horticulturalists"—and I acknowledge Hon David Bennett in the back row there; he will know a little bit about horticulture and may take a call if that is deemed appropriate—"as well as iwi."The challenge and the basis of my Supplementary Order Paper 299 is that the only group that I've just referred to that has the ability to submit a statement around Te Mana o te Wai to the Government's three waters reforms and to the entities is iwi—the only group.So why is that? Why is it that only iwi are allowed to contribute into that process? Well I can tell you what: we don't believe that the voices of iwi are the only voices that need to be around the table in regards to input in terms of the way in which water services are managed in this country.And I don't think that on this side of the Chamber we are alone in that fact—that iwi are the only stakeholders that are able to input into that conversation. There is a large number as the Minister has articulated—Federated Farmers rural communities you can go on and on.Why can these groups not play a role to be able to input into those statements? Those are binding statements as well. So these aren't just any old statements; they are binding statements on these water service entities fundamental to the fabric of the structure of this entity. But when the Minister gets up and says that you know we're not necessarily painting the facts—this is a fact.This legislation this aspect of the bill I believe is divisive. It is divisive in terms of separating out one specific group over all others. Why is that right and why is that fair in a country that would believe that we are all one?Those individuals or groups or entities should—my amendment to this clause is quite simple it is that alongside mana whenua we've also inserted that "or natural persons" which basically refers to the fact that actually no matter who you are or what you role is or what your ethnic background—doesn't matter; you're a New Zealander and you have the ability to input into these statements.So I'm very interested for the Minister to articulate: why is that not fair and just? Why is that not reasonable? Why are iwi the only group that can submit into these statements which are binding on these entities? What is the rationale for that and why is it just and fair?"