McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. Before I respond to Mr Court's comments I'd noted that I neglected to respond to the establishment date questions by Mr Watts so I want to do that now. The establishment date for the northern entity of Northland and Auckland hasn't changed because the proposed entity boundary hasn't changed. All the work that had gone into establishing that entity still remains relevant. It was the original date and so we've stuck with that.In terms of the range of dates available to the other entities the original proposal was obviously for four entities and they were able to do so by a set date. With larger entities there needs to be a longer time in which to do that. We've gone through a process with councils to get a gauge as to when they would like to go. Some want to go early some want to go late within the time frame and we've done our best to try and give them an indication as to where we think they might be able to fit through. But of course those dates may change depending on their circumstances. They may get through their work quicker. So we've left that open to Orders in Council to establish the date once they're in a position to give us a firm indications.I thank Mr Court for his comments and questions. I'll go through them one by one. It is true that the Government has been very clear right throughout that the reason we landed on four is because four entities would be more efficient and would provide more savings to ratepayers. We were firm on that. When we listened to councils and heard what they had to say about wanting more local input more local say we landed on 10. But as a result of doing it it did enable us to have a representative from every single council within each entity to have a seat on the regional representative group. That's the trade-off. Four would be more efficient and would save more; 10 not so much but considerably less than the status quo—and that's the point here. These reforms will prevent unaffordable and unsustainable rate rises that people will have to face.In regard to—I've just realised I've overlooked another comment that was made around the community priority statements around a stream on a farm. The committee must remember that the only areas in question here are those that are currently served by a council-run scheme. Most rural areas be they a rural supply scheme or ones that are self-sufficient don't come under the remit of these proposals.Mr Court's comments around collective bargaining: of course this Government will look to enable collective bargaining wherever appropriate at every opportunity. We're firm in the belief that it's through collective bargaining—if people choose to engage in that—that people get better wages and better conditions. We've heard from the sector and the water industry that they are concerned about retaining staff and they want to be able to attract staff and one way to do that is to ensure good wages and good conditions.In regards to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 400 we won't be supporting that. There's nothing stopping an entity being able to adjust the proportionality of representation through their constitutions. We also have serious concerns with these proposed changes whether balance sheet separation would still be able to be achieved and of course that's a key element to these reforms. We've heard numerous proposals some late in the piece but nevertheless alternatives were put forward. None of them will be able to achieve what we need to achieve here.With $185 billion now deemed to be a conservative estimate of the cost that we need to find as a country 67 councils none of which can do it by themselves we have to find a way forward. We could do as has been proposed and can already be done and that's allowing councils to work in a council-controlled organisation model or shared services etc.But there's one key element that that approach would overlook and that's the debt that's currently associated to water services would still sit on councils' books. Right across the country we have councils that are—through no fault of their own through the position they find themselves in—having to put forward considerable proposed rate increases that for many people are on the verge of being affordable. That trajectory will only continue particularly if the debt associated to water services sits on their books. These proposals remove that debt. No other proposal that's come from any other party in the House will achieve that.SOP 401 doesn't reflect the special interest in water that was established through the Supreme Court in part by testimony from Sir Bill English. As a result of that—Simon Court: Oh water's not sewerage pipes is it Minister.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: This may be a debating point but I'm answering the question. This is why we're doing it and I find it. It's really interesting though that Mr Court was focusing on co-governance and not on an alternative funding model. A proposal that he put forward previously was to share GST with councils. Of course that would equate to $1 billion a year. This isn't a $185 billion issue that we're dealing with here. So this is—what we're proposing—going to deal with the issue over 30 years—[Bell rung] The ACT Party 155 years later—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Are you seeking a call?Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes Mr Chair. SOP 402: we won't be supporting that either because entities' constitutions can address this through themselves already. Of course SOP 403—there's no need for this because every single ratepayer that is currently being served by a council-run scheme will benefit from these reforms.