Court Simon; Webb Duncan; Salesa JennySIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister for taking one for the team taking this bill up so that the ACT Party can ask some hard questions. Minister how is an economic regulator supposed to regulate Māori tikanga—Te Mana o te Wai spiritual concepts in water? How is an economic regulator supposed to work out—if the Minister truly believes what he's said that tikanga and Te Mana o te Wai is the primary reason for these water infrastructure reforms how is it that an economic regulator saying Well I'm looking at a $100 million proposal from a water services company to invest in a sewage treatment plant or a drinking-water plant but then I have this other report that says actually because of tikanga it's going to cost $150 million." Because that's exactly the situation that the Palmerston North District Council is in right now Minister; that's the situation they're in right now. They are being required because of the need to meet the obligations under the Resource Management Act to meet Te Mana o te Wai obligations to invest an enormous amount more maybe even double the amount so that they could get a waste-water treatment plant to service the current and future growth needs of Palmerston North. They had a quote of about $200 million to start with; once you add in Te Mana o te Wai it's closer to $500 million.This legislation Minister will further entrench flawed concepts like Te Mana o te Wai which says "Anyone making a decision about water has to first regard the health of the water its spiritual health or mauri—its life force—above the needs of communities for drinking water and above the needs of communities for economic and social development." What country on earth—what developed country on earth is incorporating spiritual concepts in decision making around water? Well New Zealand has under this Labour Government. And if there's not an opportunity to change the direction of this Government in October if that opportunity is not taken up by the voters we could be on a slippery slippery slope to having decisions about how water is allocated about how pipes are built about the cost of all our infrastructure dedicated by people who are unappointed and unelected on co-governance panels in the water service entities and of course will be unappointed—will be appointed but not elected—onto the Commerce Commission's water commission.Now Minister when we look at what else is wrong with this Commerce Commission approach a gentleman by the name of Andrew Stevenson who worked for the Commerce Commission has pointed out some fatal flaws with this legislative approach. Andrew Stevenson says there will be a limited ability to have independent oversight of large projects and less opportunity for community input compared to the original intent of the regulation—less opportunity for community input less oversight of large projects. Minister it's large infrastructure projects where things can typically go more wrong than simply doing routine maintenance on stormwater and waste-water pipes. And yet this legislation according to an expert who's worked in the water industry and in the Commerce Commission itself developing regulatory pricing models has said that it's not fit for purpose. This gentleman Andrew Stevenson also says that if the purpose of the economic regulation is that providers will have to develop asset management plans and documents to meet the Commerce Commission's specifications—but that's different from the asset management plans that are required under the legislation that sets up the water service entities. Minister this bill is being rushed through under urgency today. It is incomplete it is incoherent it introduces vague spiritual concepts into economic and infrastructure regulation—Hon Willie Jackson: Oh sit down.SIMON COURT: The Hon Willie Jackson knows it that's why he's moaning and groaning. Not even the Hon Willie Jackson knows how it's going to work. Minister would you share with the House with the people watching today: how is an economic regulator supposed to regulate tikanga? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. First of all I think it's important to recognise that this legislation is about economic regulation and the member's comments strayed fairly well outside of the bill. And I certainly don't think it's a vague spiritual notion to say that the rights of Māori to the protection of their taonga accorded under Te Tiriti are to be protected in this bill. It's quite clear that that obligation sits with the entities themselves—Simon Court: Only because you made it so.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and under clause 5 if the member were to read it rather than jibber-jabbering from the corner he would understand that the Commerce Commission has a role to make sure that its function is discharged in light of the water services entities' obligations to take into account the principles of the Treaty and also of course Te Mana o te Wai and any settlement obligations. And I am surprised that a member from a party that prides itself on private property and rights doesn't recognise that the rights accorded Māori under the Treaty are just as important as the individualistic private property rights that the ACT Party sings for so loud. So I'm very proud that this bill properly protects preserves and enhances Te Mana o te Wai because that's the right thing to do.In terms of the wider point he made about not having community input into larger projects again I think he's talking about a different piece of legislation which quite appropriately provides for widespread community input and in this piece of legislation—which is about economic regulation about ensuring appropriate price and quality regulation—that this is quite appropriately addressed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member can I just say that at 4:45 p.m. which might be while you're making your contribution we will go to valedictory statements."