Simmonds Penny; McAnulty KieranPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'm so delighted we've got to Part 4 Financial and accountability matters" because I think I've asked four or five questions and each one of them has been asking about how the efficiencies and the effectiveness and the more sustainable cost of these developments are going to occur and yet I haven't had an answer to how that's going to happen. And that is making me increasingly nervous.I know I keep harking back to what we've seen in the amalgamation the centralisation of the polytech sector but it is the only entity that this Government has done that to so far. So we look to the mistakes and the problems and the mess that is going on there. The same assurances were given: that this would be wonderful in terms of saving money and more cost-effective and more efficient when in fact it is costing hundreds of millions of dollars more. Now that's in a very small sector. This is a huge sector. So are we going to get into a situation where it is going to cost us billions of dollars more when this is amalgamated? Nothing has been given in an answer that shows how these efficiencies can occur.In fact there are a couple of things that have made me particularly nervous. A member on the opposite side of the Chamber said what a wonderful economic development opportunity—I'm almost starting to talk like her; that's a worry!—it is going to be for the head offices of these entities. Well how is it going to be a wonderful economic development initiative? The money is being spent now to look after these water services. So it can only be a wonderful economic development opportunity if more money is going to be spent.Then I talked about the regional council—people who are involved in water services—who have already been pinched by these entities even though the bill hasn't passed yet and have been offered in the vicinity of $30000 more to do the same job. Now that keeps adding up to me like more money. So I'm really really keen to see—to hear—how these efficiencies and how this more effective and better performance is going to come about because I don't see when you keep spending more money how that's going to happen.I'm really worried for our small councils. I keep talking again about Gore but I've got to talk about the areas that I know. So Gore District Council one of the smaller district councils and it's a given that they are unlikely to get a seat on the representation boards—so millions of dollars of their assets being run by an entity that they don't have a seat on. How are they going to have any input into the preparation of the plans of the pricing of the reports and how are they going to be protected from the cross-subsidisation? And again I go back to the polytech one where we've seen what's happened there where all we're seeing with the centralisation is the cross-subsidisation of those that have been prudent in the way they have run their polytechnics with those who have been much less prudent. So I would be sitting in Gore District Council or any of those other smaller councils and there is a dozen of them in our southern region feeling very very nervous about having my assets snatched away from me.And let's remember that those assets have been paid for by ratepayers over many many years. We have got families that have celebrated being on their farms for 150 years. So they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of rates over those years to own these assets which are now being stripped away from them and they are going to have no say in how they are going to be run. So can the Associate Minister of Local Government please after about the fifth time of being asked tell us how wonderfully efficient and more cost-effective these entities will be?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Local Government): Thank you very much. By the member Penny Simmonds' own admission she has asked that question a number of times and I myself have heard the Minister of Local Government respond quite clearly. Perhaps if she wished to refer to a clause in this I may be able to go into more detail. But for those members that did specifically refer to Part 4 in this I do have a response.To Mr Watts' question about Te Mana o te Wai now these statements are for a very specific purpose. These are to provide a mana whenua view on how water service entities should be implementing the responsibilities that they hold. Now that is deliberately drafted to provide a very specific purpose. Now the Crown does have Treaty obligations to meet which is why strengthened oversight at the regional level is part of this reform. However everyone has the opportunity to contribute into the operations of the entities—some examples through asset management plans infrastructure strategies funding and pricing plans and of course spatial and land-use planning purposes.In regards to Mr Brownlee's comments there is one matter that I'm looking into further Mr Brownlee and I'll get back to you. But in response to the other part these changes were made actually at the recommendation of the Auditor-General and the statement of intent would explain how the entity has had regard to consumer engagement not just how it proposes to approach future engagement."