Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Madam Chair thank you. Just following on from the comments made by Simon Watts and supporting the questions that he has raised I think it's worth looking at clauses 143 through to 145.So firstly if you step back from that there's under 142 the Obligation to publish response to Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services". Now what that would tend to say is that it should be done as soon as practicable and in any event within two years after receiving the statement which it relates to. Yet the statement that's required from these new entities in 143 is an annual statement. So the question would be: how does that then become a document that the Auditor-General can sign off on as is required under that same clause to reflect the fact that they have taken into account Te Mana o te Wai anyway? So there is the issue then of why Te Mana o te Wai persons who have that iwi responsibility or hāpu responsibility are able to make that—what would you say?—pleading to these particular bodies and why is it then that the Auditor-General steps in over the top of things? I don't understand that.Further it says that the purpose of the statement of intent is to set out the entities' strategic intentions and provide a base against which the water services entity can have its actual performance assessed. Well there's no real statement beyond that as to who makes that assessment other than say—and we return again to the Auditor-General in this sort of circular way that has been constructed in this part of the bill—having a look to see if all of the inputs are properly reflected in the statement. And it says in 144(3) the "statement of intent must—(a) relate to at least to the following 10 financial years; and (b) be prepared in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 3." Well that's fairly procedural no problem there. But what becomes interesting is that under 145 the statement of intent from the water authorities must—must—take into account "(c)(ii) the direction and priorities in the Government policy statement; and (d) how the statement relates to engagement requirements and will respond to or reflect the results of engagement; and (e) an explanation of how the proposals in the statement are linked to the matters raised in and the findings from consumer engagement stocktakes."Well what do we take from that? We take obviously that they're supposed to have some kind of comms unit inside each of these new entities that supposedly reaches out to various communities. But what we know for sure is that overarching all of the inputs that might be coming in—and there are actually not too many of them—is this Government policy statement.So when we've had the Minister of Local Government repeatedly through this committee process protesting that this was essentially an arm's length from Government an arm's length from local government with entirely the purpose of protecting water assets it is totally compromised—unless you've got some other answer Associate Minister McAnulty—by this statement in here because ultimately they can't do anything that is not prescribed by the Minister. That is abundantly clear—couldn't be clearer. That of course then is the basis on which the Auditor-General will give effect to their report saying simply whether the statement gives effect to its purpose—and its purpose of course can't contravene the national policy statement. So stamped all over this is the will of the Minister—the whim of the Minister—and the policies of the Government of the day.So I think some people are being led up the garden path about how much input they might be going to have here. We don't agree with Te Mana o te Wai proposals; we think everyone who's involved in the water situation should have a statement. But here it's clear that even they are being shut out."