Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): There is no doubt that when you look at the bill that the Minister has just had read for the first time there is in that an admission that the water reform policy brought down by the current Government is in utter tatters. We've had three years at least of being told that the four entities which the Government have set up in legislation that exist now is the best way to progress the water reforms in this country. So having done that and then latterly listening to public opinion there's been a massive scrambling and a running round and a coming up with this bill that increases the number of entities to 10. It seems just unreasonable that we could have about three years of public discussion on one proposal and then only 30 days discussion on the new proposal. That doesn't indicate a Government that listens. It doesn't show respect for Parliament given that these sorts of reforms tend to become quite deep; they are part of the infrastructure of New Zealand. I'd also just say: look councils throughout New Zealand who have objected in large numbers to the previous proposal—the proposal that's still on the books; the proposal that is still the law—and have rejected that in many of their submissions and efforts to talk to the Government are now given just 30 days to come up with their consideration on this particular new bill. I think that is totally unreasonable. So I support strongly the motion moved by Mr Watts that would kick that report-back date out to 19 November. Now I think the other side of the House knows what that means and that's the reason why they've had to dig their toes in on this very very disrespectful 30 days to make a submission.There are billions of dollars of local government assets at stake in this proposal. If people want to know what a total shambles it is the so-called compensation for—or the confiscation of—those assets has already been paid out. We've had a situation where a compensation was paid for the current legal proposal that's out there—the four waters entities—but now all of a sudden there's a panic because it's not popular it's not liked and it doesn't have the level of support that it would need to make a difference. Then we have this trumped-up little bill here that expands it out to 10 entities with very very limited opportunity for communities to have a say in their water resources—no greater in fact than they would have under the four entities. So a democratic right to be able to speak to your local government about the water situation in the area that one might live in is taken away. Right now it's gone because of the four-water proposal; now we have the 10-water proposal and it's still gone because there's this Mickey Mouse sort of talking to various little groups that are put together presumably by the vested interests and we carry on.How can it be a bad thing for the House to say Look let's give the public a little more time to digest this very big change. Let's give the public a little bit more time to recognise that this is a massive U-turn."—actually not quite a U-turn; it's sort of like a 90 degree turn by the Government moving away from their four waters proposal which is current law to this new proposal which apparently is put together as a result of listening to the objections that so many local bodies who are responsible for water at the moment have made. Well the question is: why not hear what they think of the new proposal? Why not give them time to be able to come to the Governance and Administration Committee and make those recommendations to the select committee on this particular bill? I think it's quite simple: the desire to be demonstrating any degree of a democratic approach to such a large shift if you like in the way in which water services are delivered is going to be denied to them because they may come back and say "We don't like this proposal either." and I think that highly likely.What we have here is a complete muddle and I think Parliament has a right to try and get it as straightened out as it possibly can—that is the select committee process. It's what it's supposed to be there for; it's why there is a minimum of four months and two days on most bills with the general proposition being that it should be six months. To cut it down to just under a month seems to me quite unreasonable and unfair. So Mr Watts has come up with I think a very reasonable suggestion that the bill report back get delayed until 19 November meaning that it would be up to a new Parliament—who frankly would have to deliver on the aspects of the bill—to make a decision about how that report from a select committee is received. I think it's worth noting too that this Parliament is going to go into election recess. It will be going into that period of about six or seven weeks—before the election—round about the end of August so even the modest proposal to push it out by a month to 19 November really is only going to make a couple of months' difference to it. I don't see why the Parliament would be so keen to vote for a shortened period on something that has been so very very controversial.The motion moved by Mr Watts has our support and I would hope that the rest of the Parliament can offer similar support for the reasons outlined in what I've just said."