Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm interested in taking a look at clause 119 and clause 120 particularly in Part 3. So clause 119 is the Employment of chief executive" and clause 120 is "Water services entity to be [a] good employer"—and I note that the Minister spent some time on this about being a good employer. Now in my time as—what I hope was—a good employer two of the key parts to being a good employer were acting in good faith and not indulging in pre-determination. So I'm quite interested to see or to hear from the Minister around how the appointment of a chief executive of a water services entity in clause 119 "(1) is to be appointed by the entity's board"; (2) the terms and conditions of employment [are to] be agreed between the board and the chief executive." And then there's a range of factors there—"(3) … (a) the legal commercial and operational context of the entity … "(c) public interest and prudent stewardship of public resources" and importantly "(d) relevant market information." So I'm interested to know how these positions have been advertised already before the legislation has been passed. And is that a good employer acting in good faith and is that a good employer not showing pre-determination? Because you would have to wonder about the consultation that's going on particularly as we sit here hour upon hour trying to work through clause by clause where we might be able to improve this legislation that the Minister—as she did with the 88000-plus submissions actually has no intention of taking any notice of because it has been pre-determined. So a consultation period a consultation process which actually isn't going to have anything taken from it because the positions have been advertised; the employment conditions haven't taken into account anything that might possibly change as we work through this process. So I'm very keen to hear from the Minister who was at pains to say how important it would be to act as a good employer. Now I know I keep harking back to the purpose about efficiencies and I know that is in Part 1 but of course the matters in here around employment and being a good employer also impact on that purpose of being more efficient more affordable and more of a better performance. And so I'd like the Minister to explain—and this has come from a regional council where they have talked about their staff being pinched already for these entities and being paid $30000 more a year. I'm just interested to know—and again because I've seen it happen so badly in the failed merger of the polytechnics and the international training organisations that they've taken reasonably moderately-paid people and they've increased the head office with hugely what I would consider are overpaid people. And so it looks to me like this is starting to happen already before the legislation is through. If employers are being pinched off the regional local authorities now and those sort of offers of $30k more—I'm really really struggling to see how this entity is going to be more efficient more cost-sustainable and perform better by paying more for people to do the same jobs and at the same time we're going to cut down on external contractors."