Andersen Ginny; Kuriger Barbara; Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It's a great opportunity to speak to my amendment on Part 2 clause 8. In clause 8 Repeal of Water Services Entities Act 2022" my amendment proposes to add "with the exception of the Wellington entity". Now I'm well aware that the Minister of Local Government has evidently done some consultation with councils and so I thought it was only right for me to talk to my own council in Hutt City and to get their read out of what this means for people in the Hutt Valley.The main concern they have is that with Local Water Done Well which was announced well over 12 months ago there is still no plan for balance sheet separation and that appears to be the same question that has been raised today time upon time without there being an adequate answer. The concern is that those ratepayers are now going to see significant increases and that is in the forefront of the minds of those councillors and also of all those ratepayers. It's the level of uncertainty about what the future provides.It's quite interesting because during the election over at a candidates debate Chris Bishop was pretty happy—he was saying "Yeah we're pretty much all on the same page here. We think that there should be a separate entity and that it's at arm's length from council and we can use that. So we're all good here. We're all going to be the same." The problem is that he points to Wellington Water as being the logical place. He said "The Wellington region's fine. We've got Wellington Water. That's already set up as a council-controlled organisation. We're in the right position." The problem is that under Wellington Water we are seeing 44 percent of our region's water literally going down the drain. We have local people who are out channelling leaks with funnels and pipes to put them in their gardens to save water.So in terms of what the problem is right now councils have been told—Hutt City has been told—that it's going to be at least 12 months before we have any kind of solution in terms of how we get balance sheet separation; 12 months of our water trickling down the drain while we're in water restrictions and needing water meters. This is the problem that is only getting bigger over the 12 months and we've simply had no answer tonight about what the solution is. And I was trying to think what the word is to describe taking away something that's been proposed to fix a problem and then not replacing it. And I thought "Is it 'lazy'?" But no I don't think it's just lazy; I think it's arrogant. I think it's arrogant to campaign on fixing a problem and claim to be elected on it without actually having done the work. I think that's the problem that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are starting to click on to now and they're starting to realise that this was a gimmick.What I predict—what I predict—is that many places around New Zealand are going to sometime in the future come to the same place that we had arrived at under the previous Government. So the $180 million waste that he's talking about was actually an establishment going towards fixing that problem and the waste that that Government will deliver to New Zealanders is that during a cost of living crisis we will see Kiwis having to pay double triple quadruple rates for what would have been achieved through having a simple solution. And the same problem in the Wellington region will apply as in others. Upper Hutt City Council does not want to come in. So how do you get other smaller councils to come in when there is not agreement? How is the Minister going to encourage those entities? Is he going to have meetings? Is he going to just hope they come together and see the benefit of it? That is a significant problem when some of those smaller councils are far outweighed by their debt and some of the bigger ones who have invested have no interest in taking them on.So I look forward to hearing and I ask the question again on behalf of the Hutt: what is the proposal to achieve that balance sheet separation that the council in the Hutt City still do not know about? They want too to know from the Minister what his plan is to fix the 44 percent of water that is trickling down our drains that our ratepayers and our taxpayers are going to have to fork out for.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): What I'm just going to say at this point in time is that I have heard over the course of the evening the Minister answering questions about consultation and about employment. You may not be happy with the answers that you've received but the Minister has actually answered some of those questions. I'm looking for original questions now.HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Kia ora. Ngā mihi Madam Chair. As I went to go get this bill I saw on page 17 that—and listening to Adrian Rurawhe I am going to ask a very straightforward question. I've already said my debate my tohe. I'm not going to give a long whole whakapapa. A very straight to the point question: can the Minister of Local Government guarantee that this coalition Government will not breach its Treaty settlement with the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act? Knowing that—taihoa—this Government actually settled with my iwi Waikato-Tainui in 2010 with the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act so it's a very straightforward question. My people deserve this. My people deserve this answer. Knowing that I'm actually a mokopuna from this settlement I would like to know: can the Minister guarantee that this coalition Government will not breach its Treaty settlements with our Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act?"