Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. One cannot stand by and hear a statement from the Minister in which it's quite clearly outlined that there are no alternative models. I'm unsure of the words to use to describe that but it's simply not factual on the basis that Communities 4 Local Democracy tabled an alternative model that was independently peer assessed. It was supported by over 32 councils. It articulated a pathway in order to achieve local ownership of these assets to ensure that the capital that needs to be invested would be invested and it wouldn't have these significant implications. But for the Minister to stand up and say as she did just then that there are no alternative models just simply amplifies to Kiwis around the country why this Government is simply not listening to the feedback in regards to this reform. That is deeply challenging for Kiwis across the country. To simply say—irrespective of the model put forward by the Auckland mayor the Waimakariri mayor and the Christchurch mayor—that there is no alternative is just not based on fact.I'd like to get back to clause 27 in Part 2 which I noted before in regards to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 287 and I'd started to provide an overview. At the heart of the opposition to this reform is that fact that this clause imbeds 50:50 co-governance over water services entities across this country. This is one of the single most fundamental elements of opposition lack of clarity challenge and questioning across this country without doubt. We're not here to argue around the detail in terms of what that role would look like but the simple failure of this Government to bring all Kiwis with them on a reform agenda to articulate the reasons why this is so critical and why this will deliver benefits that we're unable to achieve under the current state. The failure by this Government to bring all New Zealanders with them on this journey is going to be the single most fundamental element of why this legislation under a future National-led Government will be repealed. That is categorical.My amendment around clause 27 relates to ensuring that territorial authorities make up the majority of the positions on those regional representative groups. Why? Because those individuals are democratically appointed by their communities to manage their community's assets. Communities and local government are best placed to deal with local issues and National absolutely respects representation from mana whenua at that table and my amendment doesn't take it away. The National Party absolutely respects and desires that mana whenua have a seat at the table alongside others in our community and that is the simple difference here. But the voices around that table need to be reflective of the fact that the territorial authorities actually have the control of the assets within these water services entities.So I ask the Minister to reflect on the significant opposition that we've had across this country over the period of this reform agenda that's been on the table. We've had significant submissions. I've heard the comments saying there wasn't too much opposition in the submissions received by the select committee. Well that is absolute nonsense—absolute nonsense. If I table the form submissions by both the National Party the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union and other members across the House the issue of co-governance and the opposition around 50:50 co-governance is squarely within that. It's just that the select committee decided to treat those submissions as one submission. But that doesn't take away from the fact that nearly 88000 Kiwis across this country took the time to submit their feedback and opposition. So that is a great shame.I'm going to move to another clause but I'm conscious of the time. I want to move to clause 45 in Part 2 and this is in my SOP 288. This SOP makes amendments in regards to clause 45 and this is moving into the sphere of the regional advisory panels. For those watching at home—and it's coming up to morning tea so I hope you've had a cup of tea—we've talked about regional representative groups and we're now talking about regional advisory panels. The amendment I have put forward in regards to these regional advisory panels is to remove the requirement that there is an equal number of mana whenua and territorial authorities sitting at that table and instead make the change consistent with the change I've noted in clause 27 that the majority of seats around that table are comprised of representatives who represent our local communities our local councils and our territorial authorities. Surely that is common sense in regards to the way in which we should be managing our water assets. It does not take away that fact that mana whenua will be at the table—absolutely not—but it ensures that the majority of seats around that table are made up of individuals who are democratically elected and represent our communities on behalf of the territorial authorities whose assets are the assets that will be transferring into these mega-entities. And we can traverse later on about those assets and the ownership components of that. But I think that is absolutely a reasonable change and I think that goes to the heart of some of the most significant opposition to this bill in the public arena—the fact that this position by the Government whether it's ideological or what is that we have to have 50:50 co-governance and not only that but the fact that that group then has to have a 75 percent voting majority. In effect either group or a small number of groups has the ability to veto any single decision. And in an asset as important as water we need to make sure that we are working with our local communities and not against them. So the amendment that I've put forward ensures those voices around the table in regards to governance of our water assets and that the control remains with territorial authorities and respects that democratic element of our democracy around it—that representatives at our territorial authorities and local government are democratically appointed and accountable to the public for the decisions they make. Every three years they're at the ballot box and that is very reasonable. But the fact is that those individuals around the table must have the control around the table in order to ensure that we are both planning and delivering and executing the sustainable change required for our water infrastructure across this country. Those individuals within their local communities are best placed to be able to contribute around that table in order to make decisions on behalf of their communities who own these assets.These assets have been contributed by ratepayers over decades and decades. The assets are owned by our local communities. They're not owned by central government. This asset grab of simply moving all these assets into these four mega-entities—the heart of this reform—is the reason why the National Party remains strongly opposed to this model and does not believe that this model that's currently on the table will achieve the outcomes we require not just now but 10 20 30 40 50 years out. We need a sustainable solution—one that is bipartisan but one that all parties agree to. But this Government to date has failed to listen to the feedback on the table and that is a great shame. So I ask the Minister to give thought to the amendments I have raised in SOP 288 and also in SOP 287. I ask him to give the due consideration or—if he does not—to outline to Kiwis around this country why this Government is not willing to make changes around the fundamental premise that this this bill embeds—that the Government believes it requires 50:50 co-governance of water assets across this country. I want him to make it very clear why Kiwis are not right in regards to their opposition. I want him to be clear around why the Government believes they know best. I think New Zealanders deserve that comment from the Minister to articulate what I believe is one of the most fundamental issues with this bill.