Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Mr Chair thank you. Thank you Minister McAnulty for making yourself available to come to the committee tonight to answer questions about another three waters bill this Water Services Legislation Bill which is the third of four bills I think Minister which I guess gives people watching at home or listening at home to this debate tonight some inkling of the complexity of the reform agenda that this Government embarked on with conditional support from the ACT Party for the initial proposal.But Minister it's quite clear that at some point along the way between defining the problem there are too many disaggregated water supplies around New Zealand that don't have the economies of scale the ratings base or the income base to fund and finance the maintenance of existing networks or to provide for growth—which if you're in an existing town or city often requires replacing large parts of network infrastructure to upgrade it to allow for additional housing connections or business connections. Or if you're developing in greenfield areas near existing towns and cities it requires building new network infrastructure at what can be quite a high cost for that cost then to be either attributed back to the first movers—the people who come along to do a subdivision. And then the council says Well we've had to build new network infrastructure."—drinking water waste water stormwater for example. In the case of Auckland Council they've laid down a wero—a challenge—to developers at Drury South: if you wish to build it's $85000 in development contributions before you build. Minister all of these problems are yet to be solved by this legislation although they were extensively canvassed during the Finance and Expenditure Committee hearing on this bill.But there is a problem Minister that's been introduced in this legislation that didn't exist before the reform process started and that is a concept of iwi Māori having rights and interests in three waters infrastructure. It was a very surprising introduction—particularly for people involved in asset management and engineering and maintenance and clearing drains and doing CCTV and having to repair pipes—that in this reform package Minister in amended section 5(2) inserted by clause 4 service providers will have to demonstrate how they've taken action to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi - the Treaty of Waitangi. When you're designing an urban stormwater or waste-water network or you're designing a new subdivision and you're working out how much water you're going to need for all the people who might live there it would be outside the normal scope of work for a designer or an asset owner or an asset manager to be thinking "How do I give effect to a treaty between the Crown and 500 or so iwi and hapū representatives a treaty signed in 1840?" That's not what land developers and asset managers usually concern themselves with because it is not their business to be concerned about.Minister I just want to ask: why is it that this bill requires asset owners the water services entities to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi - the Treaty of Waitangi? In particular I asked the Minister of Local Government the former Minister—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta who's joined us here in the committee this evening; good evening Minister—"Does the Minister Believe that Māori have rights and interests in Three Waters assets built after 1840 and if so why?" That is in written question No. 7396 (2022) and the Minister responded to the written question: "To my knowledge Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those [of] ratepayers within their respective communities of interest."—that is assets built after 1840 after the Treaty between the Crown and 500 or so iwi and hapū representatives was signed and before any three waters infrastructure was built in New Zealand. So Minister could you please explain why on earth these three waters entities have to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi?"