Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to contribute to this debate which I've been enjoying as no doubt everyone else who's following—some excellent interrogation by colleague and friend Simon Watts as well as others. I acknowledge the Minister answering questions I hope that she can give some guidance to the House—and indeed the nation—on three specific points within Part 3.The first is in relation to clause 116 Obligation to maintain water services". I note at clause 116(2) that the water services entity is specifically precluded from doing any of the following and the one I do want to hone in on which is at clause 116(2)(a) "use water services infrastructure as security for any purpose". Of course in the language "security" meaning the ability to secure a loan to offer as what is sometimes referred to as collateral.In other words we have a piece of legislation that specifically says that it's not possible to use the value of these assets which will be considerable—that much is common ground between all the parties we all understand that these assets cost considerable amount of money. And it will not be possible to borrow money acknowledging the value and using that as security for it which in orthodox financing arrangement terms is an extraordinary opportunity-cost. I just wonder if the Minister can explain some of her thinking as to why that is a feature of this legislation. In a context where the political explanation has evolved over time to be that ratepayers' rates would go up were it not for the very specific form of these changes being made by the Government it does seem extraordinary that they're going to do things the hard way. So that's the first point on which I would appreciate a response from the Minister.The second is in the very next clause clause 117 "Contracts relating to provision of water services". This talks about the 15-year contract limit. My colleague and friend Simon Watts has already spoken about the implications of that and what kind of a time frame and actually to be fair the Minister herself has spoken in that general area as well in her previous contribution.My question is whether it's possible given this clause to have a contract for 15 years or up to 15 years but with the right of renewal for longer. So technically looking at the wording of clause 117(1) "a water services entity may enter into a contract for any aspect of the operation of all or part of water services for a term not longer than 15 years"—but that could be an initial term. So I wonder if the Minister can rule out the possibility that a water services entity enter into a contract let's say for 10 years but with a right of a renewal with certain conditions being met for a further 10 and then a further 10 after that—so a 10 plus 10 plus 10 arrangement. I do see the Minister following along closely for which I thank her.I'll just raise within my remaining time within this call my third and final question within this part—at least for now—which is at clause 127 "Method of contracting". Others have well-traversed the make-up of boards; of being different kinds of board members from mana whenua and more generally from a local government context—or "territorial authorities" I think they're referred to within this legislation and elsewhere on the statute book.I see that an obligation can be entered into in the form of a deed requiring at least the signatures of two board members so possibly more. I wonder if it would be prudent and if the Minister has considered saying—as would often be the case for joint-venture type arrangement whereby at least one of those members who is a signatory to such a deed should be from one category of board member or other. The obvious point would be that if you had at least one board member from one side of the equation so to speak and one from the other whether you'd categorise it as a joint venture or co-governance etc.Nevertheless it does seem important given what we understand the rationale of the legislation to be that you would have at least one person from each of those different perspectives needing to sign off otherwise it could be two from one side or two from the other at a minimum without the input of the other. That does seem contrary to the notion of partnership that's being promoted as the rationale for this legislation and indeed the changes as a whole."