Lorck Anna; McAnulty KieranANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Chair. Work—we've been talking a lot about work in the Chamber today and the regional economic development and opportunity for regions. I can refer to the region of Hawke's Bay and water infrastructure—additional local employees to upgrade and deliver these services is estimated at an additional 246 to 367 full-time jobs; and the economic development growth and potential increase: $577.2 million to $866.7 million. Now that is a huge economic benefit and that is why it is so important in this legislation that we're seeing about growth and opportunities for the region. I turn now to the question around addressing where the location of a head office should be in an entity and why it is so important when delivering services—whether it's Hawke's Bay whether it's the Wairarapa whether it's Wellington or Nelson; where operational services regional operational services on the ground are delivered to create economic development and opportunity a pipeline of work for the future growing greater skills and opportunity for the future. I asked the Minister to respond on where the opportunity growth and things like the head office location of an entity are and why that is part of the legislation. Thank you.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair and congratulations on your temporary elevation. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: To address the points made by Mr Cameron of the ACT Party it's the second time you've asked that question. I heard the Minister address it the first time but I'm quite happy to go over it again. Rural communities that currently have a relationship with their local councils face a choice. They can choose to go it alone or they can choose to go with the entity. If they choose to go with the entity then the relationship they currently have with their councils will be replicated with the entity. They will continue to have a say usually through a joint committee. They'll continue to make joint decisions on the way in which water services are delivered in their area. But I would encourage those communities to think very hard about the prospect of going alone. If they were to go alone then they are faced with the responsibility by themselves to meet the water standards and cover the costs of those maintenance and upgrades by themselves. And for many of them that is a prospect that is beyond their ability. In regards to Mr Watts' comments again a bit of repetition there. In fact I've actually already addressed the issue around head office when we discussed Part 1 I believe but I'll just repeat the answer that I gave. Ultimately whilst the provisions do require a head office to be within the service entities each area within that will also continue to have the services placed there where possible and that actually touches on a lot of what Anna Lorck—Andrew Bayly: How do you know that?Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —touched on. The question is how do we know that? Because that's what's required Mr Bayly. Well ultimately what I think we're seeing here is an attempt by the Opposition to drag this out. They're asking the same questions over and over. A bit of scaremongering from Mr Watts as to asking questions such as What does a head office mean?" Well that's clearly described in various pieces of legislation; trying to trip us into saying "Have you seen advice as to where the head office will be located?" where he knows full well that the entities themselves decide where the head office will be. So I think that covers it—I think that covers it."