O'Connor Greg; Watts SimonClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we now come to debate clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 title and commencement.SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Well after nine hours of debate we are nearing the end on what will be for many a memorable debate on a bill that is destined to fail. But the point that I want to raise in regards to clause 2 around the commencement is in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I have on the table 303. Ha! That's interesting that in itself just coming from a farming acronym. But anyway 303—we won't worry what that is. The purpose of this Supplementary Order Paper is to in effect replace clause 2(2) because it's an interesting addition that was made to this bill. So right from the outset of this conversation right back at the first reading conversation—I don't know if you remember that Mr Bayly first reading? Now this was going to be an open and transparent process that was going to have full consultation and all of that. But one of the key aspects at that point was around the fact that this bill would come into effect on 1 July 2024 and that's fair enough. That was well signalled. It gave adequate time in regards to making sure that due time was given in order to implement this bill. But the additional clause that was added in pretty rapidly after was this clause around by Order in Council which basically provides a mechanism for the Government to be able to decide at a point earlier than 1 July 2024 if they want to implement the remaining non-transitional provisions of this legislation. And why this is an issue is because it places in an additional degree of complexity in terms of this but also goes against the principles in terms of the fact that this bill would be operational for the non-transitional provisions not until 1 July. So my Supplementary Order Paper in this regard is quite simple and I'd ask the Minister in the Chair to consider around replacement of that clause and removal and deletion of clause 2(3) which is on page 12 lines 16 and 17.I guess just in terms of the closing remarks in regards to this bill in regards to that commencement it is pretty clear over the period that we've discussed this evening and last night and this morning that National strongly opposes this bill. It is our intention that if we are in Government next year we will repeal this legislation and replace it soon after. And that is for the reasons around the fact that we believe these assets should remain in local ownership we don't support 50:50 co-governance and we believe that the solutions to this problem do not lie within this bill but actually the solutions lie within our communities and we need to work with our communities not against them in order to implement solutions that are applicable for the cities regions or provinces in which people live. One-size-fits-all top-down centralisation will not solve or create sustainable solutions for water services in this industry. And we've been open right from the start in terms of wanting to work constructively around dealing with some of those bottom lines but I acknowledge the Government has deemed those bottom lines were not ones that they were willing to change. So I just wanted to note that for the record and Hansard. That is our expectation. I thank everyone who has made submissions in regards to this bill over this process and I'm sorry in which we have not been able to reflect those changes. That is the reality of where we are but we will continue to fight this and if we're in Government next year we will repeal and replace it.