Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair and I want to acknowledge the Minister—I am looking forward to a continuous period of debate through what is a significant bill; six parts and obviously we're looking at Part 1 first up. But I just wanted to go back through some of the Minister's opening statements in regards to this part and the concept right at the start that the Minister articulated around the need for reform. I want to make it crystal clear to everyone out there—and all those sitting buckled in on the couch at home with a bit of popcorn ready to go through this committee stage over the next day or so—that the National Party absolutely believe that reform is required in the water services space. The point where we disagree with the Government is the mechanism in terms of how we undertake that change and I think sometimes that point quite simply has been lost—or potentially used against to say that we aren't supportive of reform; we absolutely are and I think through this process and through the conversation we have at the committee stage we'll get into some of that detail in regards to questions around alternative models and other aspects.I think the Minister also outlined in her opening statements the catalyst for this conversation and I acknowledge that members of the National Party were engaged as part of those conversations following the events that occurred in Havelock North—and I think we all acknowledge that and the impact that that had on that community and the broader community. But the reality is that event while absolutely tragic and the causes etc. have been well traversed—it doesn't reflect the fact that the entire system in New Zealand is broken. I think this is a point at which when we look at the broader conversation around this reform agenda we acknowledge that there are areas that do need improvement; we would join with that but we don't believe fundamentally that the entire system is broken. I think that concept as well we will traverse as we go through this conversation. The Minister outlined the Purpose" clause clause 3 and we've got a number of Supplementary Order Papers on the Table there and we'll work our way through those over the period as well including one at clause 3. But the other aspects that the Minister talked about noted around sustainable funding balance sheets the governance model and actually the fact that the Water Services Entities Bill is in effect some form of solution to the cost of living crisis or dealing with the underpinning of that. I'll say right from the outset that we don't support that premise and we don't support—and haven't been able to substantiate in detail—those statements either. So we can get into that a little bit later on. The Minister has also outlined the terms of the Supplementary Order Paper that she's put on to the Table—and we'll work through elements of that as we go through. So let's get into Part 1 and particularly around the purpose clause at clause 3 which is the first clause in the Act. And the questions that I have for the Minister are as follows—and I think the purpose of this bill has been the conversation that the select committee process has traversed right from the start in terms of what is the problem that we're trying to fix and do we have confidence that this legislation on the Table will deal to and find solutions to that problem? I think that's been right from the outset the aspect which we've been unable to substantiate. And that's why National have been consistent throughout this process that we do oppose this bill. But in regards to clause 3 around the purpose of the bill I've got a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table Supplementary Order Paper 304 which basically inserts a new clause 3AA on page 12 above line 20. And quite simply this Supplementary Order Paper amendment basically amends the Act in order that this Act is repealed on the day after the date of Royal assent and some may say "Well that seems a little bit extreme" but the reality is that throughout the select committee process it was crystal clear that there is significant opposition to this reform across this country. There is significant opposition in terms of the bill that is on the Table and lack of confidence that that will solve the problem and alternative models that have been tabled that believe that there is a better pathway here in order to deal with the problem—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just a reminder to the member we're still in a general debate speech—specifically now to the part please.SIMON WATTS: No no that's all right—so the amendment that I've got on the Table under 3AA is a repeal of that legislation and it is our belief that if we put that through then we can take this back to a position where we can actually listen to the other amended alternative models that are on the Table and we'll continue on through there. The second aspect I want to raise is in regards to clause 4 and we'll get into this in a little bit of detail as well—particularly around the Te Mana o Te Wai statements. There's been a lot of conversation and I think rightly so—questions around that aspect of the bill and in particular in regards to clause 4(4) the addition by the committee around coastal and geothermal waters. And don't forget that this bill at the outset has been referred to in the public domain as three waters. But in effect the changes that have been made in regards to clause 4 make this legislation—you know you could call it five waters. That opens up a significant element of other issues and complications and we have some significant concerns around the implication in regards to what clause 4 has been modified around. So I'm also interested from the Minister in regards to the rationale in terms of the addition of those two other elements: the reality around the unintended consequences of inclusion of both coastal and geothermal waters as part of this broader legislation. Why was it put in at such a late stage in the conversation without any ability really for people to be able to make submissions in regards to that? And I think that's important because of the fact that that change in clause 4 was not there when we had the 88327 or so submissions and so therefore it has subsequently raised significant public interest and I think it is reasonable that the Minister articulates why and the rationale for the inclusion of those aspects. The other point around that—and we can get into that in some future calls—is in regards to the actual implication around differentiation between coastal and in effect the freshwater mechanisms that come through from streams and rivers that go out to sea. I think there's been quite a few questions out there in the public domain in terms of where do you draw the line around that and what are the implications around those statements which we'll get into in future elements—around who has the ability to input into the drafting of those. So I'll leave it at that at this stage and look forward to the Minister's contribution."