Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister some questions about the operating principles in clause 13. Now the operating principles of these proposed water services entities the first couple of them are actually quite reasonable: develop and share capability and technical expertise with other water services entities and throughout the water services sector". Respectfully Minister that's quite condescending. Water companies like Watercare the engineering consultancies and the contractors who support the delivery of water services develop and share capability and technical expertise with each other all the time. That's what the sector does. Then we come to clause 13(b) "being innovative in the design and delivery of water services and water services infrastructure". Minister that's called civil engineering. Innovation is something that we do when we design and construct infrastructure. Clauses 13(a) and 13(b) are condescending but ACT can live with that because the 10 ACT MPs have got used to sitting across the House from this Labour majority—we know what condescending feels like. Hon Andrew Little: It's mutual.SIMON COURT: And Mr Little acknowledges that. Now I want to take the attention of the committee and for those people that I know are watching this debate closely I want to acknowledge those people because they realise how important it is to the future of New Zealand that the flaws with this legislation are exposed whether they be the flawed funding and financing model or the balance sheet separation claims. Standard & Poor's advised Department of Internal Affairs officials that this would be a high-risk highly leveraged transaction and that without Government backing—in other words there is no balance sheet separation—they would have a B credit rating Minister a B credit rating which is one level above junk bond status.So look there are many many flaws with this bill but I want to come to this one clause 13(d) which requires these entities to partner and engage "early and meaningfully with Māori" including to inform how water service entities can give effect to Te Mana o te Wai—those statements which only iwi and hapū are able to provide to water services entities and which can be all-encompassing from the top of the mountain to the river mouth and beyond we know and include geothermal resources.Now clause 13(d)(ii): "understand support and enable the exercise of mātauranga Māori tikanga Māori and kaitiakitanga". Well what ACT proposes is water service entities if they are to be created by this piece of legislation which this condescending Government no doubt will ram through at some point today or in the next few weeks—ACT proposes in our Supplementary Order Paper 292 to amend clause 13(d) of this bill. Rather than just giving special rights to a group of people based on who their grandparents were "partnering and engaging early and meaningfully" should be with all affected communities. That means communities who rely on the supply of water whether it's through an irrigation scheme for agricultural purposes which this bill will now include whether it's to access geothermal resources to make renewable electricity or whether it's to get water from municipal supplies so that you can run your business so that you can manufacture food so you can manufacture steel products for example things that go into construction like water which is needed to make concrete Minister. So Minister I'd like you to respond to my question: why on earth is it that water services entities will only be required to take account of Te Mana o te Wai statements provided by iwi hapū and people whose grandparents might have been Māori but not with all affected local communities which include people who produce things like food like concrete and so forth?Minister would you take a call and respond to my question on clause 13(d) "Operating principles"—why you think a certain group should be given these specific rights over other groups."