Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): It's in a way disappointing to take the call because it would be really good if the Minister of Local Government could stand up and answer the questions raised by my colleague the Hon David Bennett. This is an extraordinary title to have on a clause: Financial independence". It kind of makes you think that what's being said here is that councils are being released from something and that they're being given something or that they're going to gain something. But it's all a one-way ticket. The most extraordinary thing is that there's even a special mention in this clause 166 under subclause (3) of what equity return means: "profits of the entity;" "distributions from the entity;" or "any benefit derived directly or indirectly from a water services entity that represents is calculated by reference to or is determined by—(i) a share in or proportion of … (ii) the entity's surplus or residual"—blah blah blah; on it goes. Anything—they can't get it. So the owners of the asset are completely shut out of any benefit financially from that. Worse than that where there is the case of councils who have looked after their assets who have kept them up to date and in the case of Christchurch city spent an enormous amount of money bringing them up to what would effectively be a 65-year standard they're just taken—walk away. And apparently then no concern about some of the specifics that have been mentioned by Eugenie Sage today and they concern me as well—flooding in the southern parts of the city southern and eastern parts of the city. No direct control over any of that discussion. And it makes it abundantly clear here that they can't even raise funds on behalf of this organisation to do some of these works. So the idea that somehow this is financially freeing is a nonsense because there is no financial connection in the first place.The other thing I think is really quite I think deceptive in all of this is that the Minister and other Ministers from the Government have gone around saying "No it's not a confiscation. No we're not taking the assets. The ownership remains with the local authorities." Well look if you own a pair of trousers but you can't wear them because someone else has got them you may as well not own them. And that's exactly what the situation is here—exactly what the situation is here. It's like a farmer going out in the morning to put on the gumboots to find that no someone else has grabbed them. He owns them but he's in his stockinged feet in the mud for the rest of the day. Well that's the sort of ludicrous situation we've got. You know Mr Doocey owns a flash car. It's an amazing thing it's got his photo on the side of it. But he gets out there in the morning and finds that someone else has taken it. Yeah someone else has taken it because while he owns it it's not his. And he goes through all these examples. It's just utterly ridiculous to have this here. So the questions raised by my colleague the Hon David Bennett are reasonable ones and they should be answered because if this is so good if this is the sliced bread answer to three five six or 10 waters—whatever it might be—then there's got to be a greater benefit than "Trust us. We're from the Government." which is essentially what this bill is saying to all of those who are on the end of any particular water reticulation. The bit that is also just a little bit unanswered—and I asked this question earlier in the day—is where we're talking about a territorial authority or an entity or another such representative group that has the interest in water where does it leave irrigation schemes? Because they all take water that run across the green fields as it's called. So the question is: do they still own their assets? What's the value of their water takes? Are they now subject entirely to the whim of whoever might find themselves firstly on the representative group which they are not part of and not prescribed to be or the local authority or local authorities multiple that their scheme may run over.So this clause 166 needs a response from the Minister. We don't think it'll be a good one but it should be at least given in the Hansard."