Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): In no particular order—because the comments have been quite free ranging—but in an attempt to try and cover off many of the comments in relation to Part 4 I think there's a few things that can be clarified within the context of the questions that have been asked. Firstly in terms of financial separation many members in the Chamber have pointed to clause 166. It's going to be very important in terms of the role and function of the water services entities and their relationship to the regional representative group and then the professional governance of the board that there is separation partly for the governance elements of what needs to be done in order to deliver a service but primarily so that that separation gives confidence to the credit-rating agency that you can finance the investment in infrastructure through the ability to raise debt. And that separation is not unusual to many members in this Chamber. Take for example the superannuation's Guardian Trust which is two arms' lengths away from Government.I do want to talk about the issue of the Government policy statement (GPS) because there was a perception that was raised in the Chamber that the strong arm of Government can actually tell the water services entities what to do. That is not the case. It's set out in legislation in terms of how a Government policy statement is intended to operate and provide some direction—and this is strategic direction. This is not hands-on telling; this is the strategic direction. But if we go to clause 130(3) and look at what a GPS involves it means that the Government could express areas of concern in public health. So take Waikouaiti for example and the lead that was found in the water. And the more that we test our waterways it could become quite a public concern. And I think about members in the south and nitrates in the water are a very big concern for many members of the south. So from a public health point of view this may well capture the attention of the Government to say We need to do more about that. We need to have cognisance from a public health point of view of this aspect."Now the fix might not solely be in the domain of the water services entity but for the Government that is looking across the whole system of its ability to ensure that matters are addressed that's why a GPS a Government policy statement can be quite influential. The GPS can express an interest in terms of public health the environment planning processes and growth and when we think about housing and urban development it is critical because what has frustrated the current housing crisis has not only been a former Government that didn't invest in public housing but actually the planning process. And so we need to make sure that the water services entity aligns to the planning process and addresses areas of priority for a Government in areas such as this—also climate change mitigation and adaptation. And again I've spoken at length on many contributions in this House on this bill that this is a pressing issue for councils to address. And when we look at significant weather events it is the lack of resilience of our water infrastructure network that sees when flooding occurs sewage seeping on to the streets which is unacceptable impacting on drinking water which is unacceptable. And then we understand just how fragile our water network is.Water security is another element that I think—at a strategic level for a Government—is only a responsible measure to take to address this issue. Now we have the luxury in New Zealand to enjoy good rainfall but that should not let us believe that we have an infinite resource in water. We should treat water as a precious resource. And so water security is a really important consideration.Resilience to natural hazards—we've spoken at length about that. And also again this protects the public interest. This protects "New Zealand Inc." interests. We have included a new provision and I've accepted the views of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in new subclause (3)(a)(vii) that "local procurement employment joint arrangements and joint water services entity arrangements:" preserve the opportunity for the local community to participate in the delivery of water services. Why? Because it matters. Why? Because we know that when we invest in our own people and our own businesses everybody benefits—everybody benefits.I want to come to another issue that was raised in the Chamber and it was one raised by Mr O'Connor in relation to Te Mana o te Wai statements and he posed the question that Te Mana o te Wai statements aren't that unique. I guess in many ways if you take it from your perspective Mr O'Connor they are probably an inclusive way of looking at environmental priorities. And I have said previously in the House that Te Mana o te Wai aspirations are not binary; they are not exclusive. It's an opportunity to find a way to integrate a whole world view about how we think about water—not one two three four five six but water as a whole system and how we look after it. Our kids want us to have that perspective going forward and for far too long that has not been the case. Case in point: every time the issues relating to this reform programme are referred to it's three waters as if there's no interconnectedness with other elements of how we look after water—for example discharging water to rivers lakes oceans and our beaches. So the point of that is that the unique perspective that iwi mana whenua and Māori bring to the Te Mana o te Wai statements is that in its application what this proposes is a catchment-by-catchment approach to thinking about how we find solutions to some of the challenges—not just about water service delivery providing safe drinking water but when we discharge water to the environment let's make better use of local knowledge in relation to perhaps wetlands. And a lot of that knowledge is very local and some of the traditional knowledge—you go to Thames and you see where they've consented for some housing and lots of locals will say "Why did they put housing there? Because that was a natural flood plain." And the member knows it. So I think when we draw on the best of what we have to offer our communities—the opportunity to make good sound resilient decision-making for the future in this space—then we could not ignore the fact that having Te Mana o te Wai statements as complementary additions to the decision-making process is a total positive benefit. I want to come now to clause 140 and it was commented on briefly in this Chamber. The reason that I would like to clarify why that is an addition to the legislation is that as we engaged with several mana whenua interests—and you will recall a primary consideration is upholding existing Treaty settlement obligations. Clause 140(1)(a) and (b) enable where there is a case that iwi mana whenua interests straddle a particular boundary that there is an opportunity for those interests to be reflected and taken account of most certainly if they are clearly expressed within a Treaty settlement. And that clause enables for example at a practical level a service-level agreement across an entity boundary to exist partly to uphold the mana of a Treaty settlement but partly to ensure that where it makes sense the aspirations for a catchment that may be divided by a boundary—you can still achieve the beneficial outcome in terms of decisions around that catchment and ongoing water-service delivery. I felt that it was important to clarify that particular clause. Lastly coming to the matter raised by the member for the Greens Eugenie Sage on her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 296. The argument that she sets out in terms of being able to lower the threshold for a major transaction to enable greater scrutiny of the regional representative group at a level—at a level—that makes sense but not set at a level—so I know that the member mentioned 10 percent—that could be a threshold that would actually to some extent push the role of the regional representative group into more of an operational set of considerations. Well 25 percent in our determinations—and I took advice around this—is a threshold that I still believe enables the intent of what the member wants to achieve which is to make it a very real tangible consideration that goes to the regional representative group and then the decision-making process around divestment of assets for example. So it's our determination that we should support that SOP and I thank the member for putting it up."