Simpson Scott; McAnulty KieranHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Before I start my contribution right now I'm just slightly concerned that the Minister seems to be bereft of officials assisting him. It's usually the case in committee stage that there are officials seated at the right-hand of the Speaker's Chair to assist and advise the Minister. I am concerned that he may be relying entirely on his own memory and understanding of the legislation or perhaps he is using some kind of electronic device to communicate with his officials; some kind of a whiz-bang technology that may be unusual in this House. Because normally officials are present to advise and assist the Minister—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Thank you. The member has made a point and I'll ask him now to return to Part 1 of the bill. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you Madam Chair. So I want to refer to clause 4B of Part 1 on page 7 of the bill that is sitting on the Table. This is a section that amends the interpretation of the principal Act that was passed in 2022—last year. In particular I want to refer to the amending clause 4B which relates to definitions that are used in the Resource Management Act 1991. It won't escape the attention of members in this Chamber that that is a piece of legislation that is currently under review itself. In fact as part of the urgency motion that was passed earlier tonight the replacement legislation to the Resource Management Act 1991 is actually going to be considered by this House towards the end of the week—that's the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. So my question to the Minister in the chair relates to the use of terminology and definitions that are currently contained in a piece of legislation that is about to become null and void in its own right. Now having said that and asked the question I want to make it very clear to members across the Chamber in this committee stage—and also to people who may be listening on their wirelesses or watching on television—that in fact the National Party will given the opportunity after the general election in October be repealing not only this Water Services Entities Amendment Bill in its entirety but it's also our intention to repeal completely before Christmas the natural built and environment legislation and the spatial planning legislation. Nicola Grigg: That'll be a real bonfire. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That'll be a real bonfire" my colleague Nicola Grigg says. So here we have the kind of nonsense that is going on in terms of the dying stages of a Government amending legislation that was passed using their absolute majority just six or seven months ago replacing definitions in a piece of legislation that they are indeed themselves replacing but will also be repealed if a new Government is elected in October. So my question to the Minister relates to the use of the definitions in the existing Resource Management Act 1991 in clause 4B of this amending legislation and it includes definitions relating to water amongst which it says "water in any form while in any pipe tank or cistern" "water … in any part of a river lake stream pond wetland or aquifer;". That's a very wide definition of water.There are some critics of this legislation who say that part of the problem is that by owning the infrastructure you effectively own the water. Of course that has always been a principle from this side of the House that nobody owns water—that nobody owns water. But if you own the water in any form—while in "pipe tank or cistern" "in any part of a river lake stream pond wetland or aquifer"—then actually effectively you own that water simply because you own the infrastructure and the network that goes with it.So I'm keen to know from the Minister—what effectively this piece of legislation does is by abrogating the ownership to these 10 entities remove the democratic responsibility and accountability that goes with it. Then defining water as widely as it does—interestingly enough it doesn't include apparently steam or ice and I guess maybe that could be considered water in any form. But what effectively this means is that the control and ownership of what flows through the pipes tanks cisterns rivers lakes streams ponds wetlands or aquifers then becomes effectively—even if not written into the black letter law of the legislation—the ownership of what flows through namely the water is designated and deemed to be in the ownership of these unelected undemocratic and unaccountable organisations. So if the Minister could cast some light on those matters I would appreciate it.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Madam Chair thank you very much. I thank Mr Simpson for his questions. So the definition of water aligns with that proposed in the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. Any outstanding references have been dealt with through the legislation bill. All three of those are included in the urgency motion which we find ourselves in now. What is proposed in this bill is about the management of water not ownership. There's nothing in the bill that could reasonably lead to what the member has suggested."