Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): What an excellent choice Madam Chair. I just wanted to turn to Schedule 2 Part 1. As the Chair is probably aware I represent the area of Port Waikato half of which is in the Auckland City area and the other half is in what will obviously become the Western-Central Water Services Entity.Hon Louise Upston: Mighty Waikato.ANDREW BAYLY: Mighty Waikato. But the first question I've got is about the issue around what happens if Watercare or actually Mayor Brown says no. What's going to be the result? I don't think we've canvassed this before. What happens if there is a revolt and Auckland Council says We're not going to put Watercare into this new arrangement." and takes the Government to court? I'd just like to know what the Government's Plan B option is. Hon Mark Mitchell: Yeah what is it?ANDREW BAYLY: We don't know—we don't know Mr Mitchell. That's a real prospect. Actually one might say it's actually a call of democracy from the new Mayor of Auckland. And of course there's other councils rebelling as well—we know about Christchurch etc. But that is the first question. I acknowledge the Minister stood up before which is very good. What would be the outcome if Auckland Council chose not to proceed with this?But the second thing is: if you take the Watercare area which covers all of Auckland the big issue I've got is even in that big area we've got competing priorities. Down south in my area around Pukekohe and Drury which is part of Judith Collins' Papakura electorate—massive development going on; a whole lot of big developers doing thousands of homes and the councillors love talking about the size of Hamilton being located in there in the next 30 years. And then if you go up to West Auckland and up towards where Mr Mitchell is the good MP massive developments there. So even in the city of Auckland there are these huge competing priorities around "Do we put more infrastructure down south? Do we put it up over to the west?"And of course Labour will assume that everybody can just borrow money and do everything at once. Well actually not. Particularly if you're a board member you have prioritisation; you have limitations around how much you can do. And of course what are the parameters for the prioritisation? So I'm just drawing on Watercare as an example. When you then expand it to include Auckland Council Far North District Council Kaipara District Council and the Whangarei District Council what a minefield about how this new entity will prioritise it. I heard the Minister talking about before the representation group. But just going back to Matt Doocey's point just before even if one of these councils like the Far North doesn't have a representative on that regional group how then do we make sure that when the board comes together it has a clear prioritisation of objectives? So one is that they will have this big kahuna of developments going on in Auckland and then they've got obviously big social issues in places like Kaikohe Kamo all of those sorts of areas—how will the board take into account and prioritise that investment particularly where you may not have a council advocate sitting on the representative board or actually have a direct influence in terms of who the board member is overseeing the affairs of the CEO?I think that is one of the biggest things that we heard when Simon Watts and I were out going around the country like all the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee hearing from people. The central issue that people had and certainly from the mayors was: "How do we have accountability?" When we asked them "What happens when you get the call as the mayor that you've got broken down water services in a small part of rural New Zealand such as around the banks of the Kaipara; where do you send that person to and how do you make sure that that is dealt with in a timely manner?" That lack of accountability is one of the core reasons why so many councillors and mayors came to see us and say "This is bad for our local communities.""