Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm wanting to have a discussion in regards to both clauses 10 and clauses 11: clauses that we haven't discussed so far this evening in detail. Clause 10 firstly is in regards to the regional representative groups and the point that I'm interested to converse with the Minister about is in regards to how this will work in practice. Because the regional representative groups in this clause outline that there will be one member for every territorial authority that will sit on that committee—and of course there is 50:50 co-governance embedded within this which means that for every one of those roles there will be an equal and opposite position for mana whenua on that.But when you look at—and this is linked with clause 11—the water services entities that will be established and you have to reference Parts 1 to 10 of Schedule 2 to get the list of those entities but one of the entities is in the Waikato. The Waikato Water Services Entity has 10 separate territorial authorities: Waitomo Waipā Waikato Matamata-Piako—I could go on. So in effect 10 representatives on these regional representative groups plus 10 mana whenua or iwi groups—you're going to have 20 people on this regional representative group and what's interesting is this isn't the biggest one that's there. I'm sure we might hear a little bit more about that later on. But just for simple pragmatism the Minister noted that one of the consequences of the Government listening to feedback is that they're going to implement that one representative group but how in practice will a group operate with 20 different individuals? I'm sort of laughing a little bit because I'm just thinking of the practicality of actually—with all the will and a bit of divine intervention no doubt.I still don't think it's going to be possible to get those 10 entities plus then the 10 iwi representatives—and of course in the North Island particularly up in that neck of the woods you've got a large number of iwi groupings which will be wanting and seeking representation. How is that group ever going to be able to get to a consensus—make a decision on anything let alone you know what time they break for morning tea? Even that conversation I think might be a tough one. So I don't think that's at all workable or practical or pragmatic. My question to the Minister is quite simply: how has he sought assurance himself that actually this is going to be able to work in practice when in reality we all know that it is challenging at best even with eight or 10 around a table to get to a position where you need consensus? Of course don't forget the legislation underpinning this of which this is amending requires 75 percent consensus across those stakeholders on those groups—75 percent consensus. Well that is a threshold that puts us up into orbit and beyond I think in regards to the practicality of decisions being made.So that's the question in regards to clause 10 I then refer on subsequently to that surprisingly to clause 11 which follows clause 10. This is in regards to the establishment of these entities and don't forget the whole purpose of this amendment bill is to in effect establish six additional water services entities over and above what were previously envisaged. So the list again in clause 11 refers to Parts 1 to 10 of Schedule 2 and it outlines all of the entities in regards to what will be established.The specific question I have and the Minister's referred a number of times—I think it was in reply to one of the supplementary order papers from the ACT member Simon Court—around Well that's not going to allow us to meet balance sheet separation etc. etc." Well when you look at—and don't forget; remember back in the day when there were some suggestions around forming council-controlled organisations and the pushback was when you've only got three entities that wouldn't necessarily meet balance sheet separation. That was the pushback that we had in the early days.But now you look at Taranaki Water Services Entity—and you've got New Plymouth and South Taranaki and you've got Stratford and that's it! There's three! So that's a pretty small entity but that seems to all of a sudden miraculously meet the criteria. Then you get down to Canterbury and West Coast and you've got Tasman and Marlborough and then you've got split entities—this gets into where the Ngāi Tahu boundary is of course which creates another degree of complexity in this whole legislation. You've got parts of Buller District Council and parts of Grey District Council so it's sort of like a shadow boundary line. I mean if you want to make this more complex you'd think "Crikey that's one way to do it" and they've been successful so I do acknowledge the Minister's success in that regard of creating a governance model which is borderlining.The feedback was very clear from the councils down in that neck of the woods that "Please please Minister give us a break. You know just allow us to operate within our defined boundaries; I mean that in itself would help us". That fell on deaf ears because none of that feedback was taken on board. We've kept these secret boundaries but again in regards to clause 11 which establishes these entities how is that going to work in practice when you're in effect slicing down parts of the district—I mean Buller and Grey just driving a line between those entities and one town one little settlement one house on that side of the road is in one water service entity and the other house on the other side isn't when I go up the road. I mean seriously? Geez. The opportunity here for this amendment bill was to sort of reflect back and go "Oh maybe we made a couple of mistakes that's OK"—Hon Scott Simpson: A couple!SIMON WATTS: Maybe a couple; I'm being generous.Hon Scott Simpson: You're being very generous.SIMON WATTS: —very generous. Maybe this is an opportunity to amend it! It's all in the title isn't it: the "Amendment Bill". Well that's another opportunity to amend it. But no no. We left that there. So the question for the Minister again is: how the heck in practice is this really going to work? Of course we set up originally at the start and we said "This model will never work if we have more than four entities. Remember that conversation? Well we listened and that's the feedback and now we've created 10." but again how is this going to work in practice?My last question in regards to clause 11 is what sort of consultation was undertaken with the councils in regards to establishing these entities? Because as we referred to before if I look at Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity Auckland Council are opposed to the reform—well that's quite a big issue when they're quite a big significant player in that entity. Kaipara: well they're definitely opposed; I'm looking to the good member from up that neck of the woods in terms of Far North District Council. Then you've got Whangārei.I mean no one wants to do this right? No one wants to do this. They're pretty comfortable that they can create their own structure but they haven't been given the choice to be able to do that. They've been mandated to do this. So what sorts of conversations were had with these entities? Then of course as we know in regards to clause 11 which establishes the entities we then go on to refer to the clause that we referred to before around clause 5 which then means that actually that Northland-Auckland entity—of which no members of those entities actually want to do the reform anyway—is accelerated and actually kicks off in mid-2024. I think no further questions your honour. So I'll leave it at that."